One Beggar’s Bread

A silly beggar girl shares the latest scraps she is digging through: some nourishing tidbits, a few tasty morsels and a bit of dining a la dumpster…!

Update on Jehovah’s Witnesses

Posted by onebeggarsbread on March 18, 2008

We’ll, my Jehovah Witness “friend” Abbie finally came back a few weeks ago. I had no idea what to expect, or how to prepare. I really wanted to let her lead the discussion, with me raising questions that may cause her to doubt or investigate further. Trying to prepare without knowing which direction we would go in was daunting. It WAS nice to go through my dis-organized box of JW stuff and refresh my memory. These are the notes I found (I will update links as I input them into WordPress):

The Name of God

The Trinity

False Prophecies of the Watchtower

Abbie and another gal spent a few hours with us, discussing the Bible over yummy gluten-free chocolate cupcakes and steaming herbal tea. Abbie brought a book with her called What the Bible Really Teaches, and as much as my pride caused me to resist the student role, I kept reminding myself that lessons in humility are”just what the Doctor ordered” for me!  I thought I would look for chances to share the Gospel and JESUS with them whenever the time arose.

My boys had watched me prepare. They had lots of questions to ask! One of the questions was, What if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right? I loved that question, and told them we needed to investigate to find out! I let them know they should never be afraid to seek Truth. I also told them about many of the mind-control tactics and false prophecies and scriptural changes the Watchtower has accomplished over the years.

Normally in our house we have an hour or so of “quiet time” each day where each person goes in a room by himself and reads or plays with quiet toys. (I don’t think I could survive without this time of peace I have to myself each and every day.) I let the boys know that it was very important that they stay very quiet while the JW’s were over. If they wanted to hear or discuss anything with us, they were allowed. They could play with Legos or the like in the living room, as long as they were respectful.

My 2 littlest boys were quiet as a mouse, except for interrupting every once in awhile to show off an “amazing” creation or two. My eldest played with Legos part of the time, and then got right in the thick of discussion! The JW’s and myself got stuck disagreeing on a few random points that I probably should have left alone. During a few of those moments, when perhaps the emotion in the room was running a bit high as a few people tried to speak at once, my 10-year old began to interrupt. He was so cute, not really knowing what we were talking about, but obviously knowing better than I did what was important. More than once he would cry out, “B…B….But, that’s why JESUS is soooooooooo special! Because we don’t have to DO ANYTHING to get to be with God! He did it all for us!” One of those times, while chuckling at how off-the-subject he was, I felt a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat! I realized it didn’t matter so much how Abbie and her friend responded, the decision to get together the JW’s was causing MY SON to be introspective and think deeply on matters of Christ and Salvation! And THAT made the whole awkward meeting worth it!

To sum up, we discussed what we thought the whole point of the Bible was. The JW’s think the book, cover to cover, is pointing toward the grand Kingdom which will be set up on earth. I see all of scripture as pointing to Jesus. The Old Testament looked forward to Him (e.g. Passover!) and the New Testament looked at His life on earth and to His future reigning.

We talked a lot about heaven. I didn’t quite understand that JW’s think we simply stop existing, like a dog does, when we die. They used a verse in Ecclesiastes to “prove” their point. It was an odd discussion that helped me understand a bit more where they are coming from. They do think that they will be resurrected again, with the new Kingdom, if they were good enough. But, they won’t be in the presence of God. They said they will never be separated from God’s love, using the analogy of us being not separated from the President’s administrative power here in our state even though we are almost 2000 miles from Washington D.C. This shocked me. I declared, “But would you be satisfied to be that far from your LOVER? I want to be WITH HIM!” I realized they don’t know the Lord like I do. They don’t share in intimate love with Him. Again, the whole discussion just seemed to show how the focus with JW’s is on earthy satisfaction and that Jesus is truly not very important to them. The catch phrases with both us and them sound the same, but the focus is topsy-turvy.

I asked a bit about whether the ladies looked to Watchtower above the Bible. They said, no they don’t, that they think Watchtower can make mistakes. They also claimed that they do not have to go along with prophecies from Watchtower. I said, “Oh, good to hear! Because I have been concerned over false prophecies, and the rumor that you would be disfellowshipped if you didn’t tote the party line.” I happened to have a little packet of photocopies from old Watchtower publications that made different predictions (Jesus coming back in 1874, the end of the world coming various times, etc.) with no mincing of words (again, when I get the chance I’ll put up links here — the story on the street is that one can get into HUGE trouble by not believing whatever Watchtower teaches). I mentioned the packet, perhaps a bit hesitantly. Abbie responded so quickly that she was interested in the packet! She said she had heard this complaint before and was curious to know how to answer people. She took the papers, folded them hurriedly, and put them in her purse. We’ll have to see her response to the photocopied information this Friday.

I know that this coming Saturday is the JW’s big communion day. I can’t remember what it is called right now, but learning about it has broken my heart. Only those select few who are going to Heaven (there aren’t many left as Heaven was closed to new followers in 1935) get to take communion. All others have to pass the cup and the bread by. I’m hoping to share my personal experience with communion with my friends this Friday.

The kids and I are learning about Passover this week as well. The other day, I felt like God almost audibly suggested we have the boys share their crafts and lessons with the lovely ladies as a way to share the gospel with them! I told the boys our researching Passover is part of a covert operation this year!

But, my house is not too clean at this present moment. I’m not finished researching and reading for the Friday meeting. I’m feeling rather under-the-weather hormonally as well. And we have a writing class for 2 of boys across town tomorrow, homeschooling reading and crafting to accomplished, neighbor kids beating down the door (Spring Break for them), and errands to run. I’m starting to get that overwhelmed feeling again…

So, if you read this, say a prayer that we may be prepared, full of God’s love, gracious, kind, considerate, and wise as we welcome the JW ladies into our home once more. And if you say a prayer that these meetings won’t continue for too long…well I’d be happy with that as well! Or at least a boost of confidence that these meetings are part of God’s plan!

84 Responses to “Update on Jehovah’s Witnesses”

  1. TJ Says:

    Hello, I’m TJ, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m glad that you have such an interest in spiritual matters and others that you are willing to discuss these things.

    I would like to ask you, and this is an honest question, what do you think the “new earth” is where Peter says, “God made a promise to us, and we are waiting for a new heaven and a new earth where goodness lives”? (2 Peter 3:13, NCV) If you have any questions for me, I’d be happy to answer them.

    Take care, TJ

  2. onebeggarsbread Says:

    Thanks for stopping by, TJ!

    I hope I didn’t say anything offensive to you, I wasn’t thinking about Jehovah’s Witnesses reading this. I am so honored that you read it and left a comment! Thank you!

    What do I think the “new earth” is in 2 Peter 3:13?

    Well, I think there WILL be a new earth! I’m not sure, actually if I think it is a completely re-created earth or more of a renewed earth…or even exactly how it will all work out. I would like to dedicate more time to serious study on all things regarding our future!

    When Jehovah’s Witness come over, I don’t attempt to disagree with them on the idea of a new earth — the idea is scriptural! I DO disagree with them on related ideas that pop up — the idea of 2 classes of people, some who go to heaven some who stay on earth (and a 3rd, I guess, that just stays dead?) or on what that 144,000 number in Revelation means :) — but not on the idea of a new earth in general.

    I found this quote from one of John Piper’s sermons that sort of brings the focus back to what I find is the central message of scripture:

    “But the ultimate gift of the gospel is not the new heavens and the new earth. The ultimate good of the gospel is not a redeemed body. The ultimate good of the gospel is not forgiveness, or redemption, or propitiation, or justification. These are all means to an end. The ultimate good of the gospel that makes the gospel good news, and without which none of these other gifts would be good news, is God himself—beheld in the glory of his crucified and risen Son, and enjoyed because of his infinite beauty, and treasured because of his infinite worth, and reflected because we have been conformed to the image of his Son.”

    I really think it is all about Jesus!

    Anyway, thank you so much for stopping by. I’m truly touched!!

    Deborah

  3. TJ Says:

    Hi Deborah,

    Thank you for your kind response; and no, I wasn’t at all offended by your original post. :) I think we are essentially in agreement on the main theme of the Bible. We view Jesus as the King of God’s Kingdom, and it is in that governing role that Jesus will completely fix all of mankind’s problems and unite all creation in worship of God.

    And I can understand why you object to our belief that only some people will live in heaven and others will live on earth. But if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask you based on what God tells Adam at Genesis 1:28 and 2:15-17, do you think it was always God’s purpose for humans to die and go to heaven - or did he originally purpose for them to live on earth forever, so long as they were obedient?

    Thanks,
    TJ

  4. Pilgrim Says:

    Dear TJ:

    Many times when Christians and JWs debate, they get all caught up on peripheral issues like celebrating birthdays, blood transfusions, why Kingdom Hall’s have no windows, the New Earth, etc.

    As valid as some of the questions may be, none of them–not one–will have anything to do with the process of ones salvation.

    The one and only issue of utmost importance is “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:13-17). Your answer to this question put forward by Jesus Christ is the one that every person who ever walked the earth will have to answer one day. Who JWs say He is and who Christians say He is, is what separates Christians and JWs.

    Who do YOU say He is?

  5. TJ Says:

    Well howdy there, Pilgrim.

    Sorry, that was a bad John Wayne impersonation. :) You asked me, “Who do YOU say He is?”

    I agree wholeheartedly with Peter, who answered the question with, “The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20) In my comments above, you’ll find that I wrote about Jesus heading God’s Kingdom, a real working government in the heavens. So if we put faith in him as the Christ, God’s anointed king, we will live under that Kingdom’s rule

    I think we agree one that. But what I was asking also concerned God’s purpose for mankind, since it is scriptural that there will be a “new earth”. Did God always intend for faithful humans to live on the earth for awhile, then die, then be resurrected to heaven? Or did he intend for faithful humans to live on the earth forever and take care of it?

    The reason this question is pertinent is because God’s purpose *cannot* be changed. Jehovah has said, “my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

    By the way, I have never been in a Kingdom Hall that has no windows. :)

    Take care,
    TJ

  6. Pilgrim Says:

    TJ:

    Thanks for your response.

    From what I can gather from the Scriptures, God placed man on earth to dwell there. However, man rebelled and caused sin to enter into the equation.

    Is God sovereign? Absolutely. Man’s sin did not take Jehovah by surprise. This is why Christ’s Sacrifice was foreordained before the foundations of the world.

    So the perplexing question is, if God knew this and knew that Adam and Eve would sin and knew His Son would have to redeem us then He knew there would be those who would be with Him in Heaven, and thus, knew that man would one day be with Him in eternity in Heaven. So did Jehovah INTEND for man to always be on earth or did He intend for man to be with Him in Heaven?

    It’s a very difficult question to ask if you believe Jehovah is a God who is in control.

    But as I said in the previous post, this is a side issue. Our eternal destiny will not be determined by what we believe about planet earth, but by what we believed about Jesus.

    I believe you will agree that there is only one true Christ but many counterfeits.

    The Muslim Jesus was just a good prophet. The Catholic Jesus is a helpless utterly useless entity that can’t do anything to appease His angry Father without the Virgin Mary’s help. The Mormon Jesus was a polygamist who fathered many children and who is the literal, physical offspring of God the Father and Mary.

    Then we come to the Jesus of the Watchtower organization. This Jesus does not resemble the Jesus of Islam, Catholicism or Mormonism (this is a good thing). However, this Jesus also bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible. Of course, this is where I expect you to disagree with me.

    Without “telling you what you believe” let me ask you and afford you the opportunity to tell me what you believe.

    Did the Jesus of the Watchtower resurrect as a “spirit creature” leaving His “physical” body behind to be evaporated into gases by Jehovah? If so, please provide chapter and verse to support this.

    Respectfully,

    - The Pilgrim

  7. TJ Says:

    Hi Pilgrim, thanks for your response.

    You asked, “did Jehovah INTEND for man to always be on earth or did He intend for man to be with Him in Heaven?” Apparently you are leaning towards a “No” answer for God intending man to live on earth. I would say Yes.

    Concerning what Jehovah intended when he created the earth, we read, “he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18, NIV) So isn’t his intention for the earth clear?

    And even after Adam sinned, God promised that “the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.” (Psalm 37:29, NIV) So when we compare these statements with the promise for a new heaven and a new earth, doesn’t it seem quite reasonable that some righteous humans will be living on the earth forever?

    Now I can understand why you feel that this is a side issue that is not of much importance, but I believe that ALL of God’s purpose is intimately connected, and a good understanding of one aspect helps us to better understand another aspect. The further one gets into a discussion of Jesus’ identity the more these aspects will begin to overlap. So, on to your question about Jesus’ body.

    It wouldn’t be possible for Jesus to retain the physical body he had while on earth. Why? Because it was a sacrifice! The man Adam lost the right to living forever on earth as a perfect human (in a perfect physical body), therefore, to give Adam’s descendants back that right (and thus fulfill God’s original purpose), Jesus had to take up a perfect physical body, living as a human, and give it up freely in their behalf. If he took back that human body, the sacrifice would be nullified.

    In line with this, it is plainly written, “If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one . . . ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:44,45) Jesus was resurrected with a spirit body, which is what he had before he became a human. (John 17:5) Furthermore, it would also be impossible for Jesus to retain his physical body while living in the heavens, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 15:50)

    I hope Deborah doesn’t mind this discussion taking place here, and I’d still be glad to hear her thoughts on these matters.

    Thanks,
    TJ

  8. onebeggarsbread Says:

    Hey guys!

    Love the discussion! I’d like to put in my 2 cents but haven’t had much time to think!

    We are putting in a garden right now, or rather spending the day getting our backyard cleaned up and ready for a garden! Perhaps tonight I’ll time to comment!!

    Deborah

  9. TJ Says:

    Hi Deborah,

    Thanks for chiming in. :) It’s wonderful that you care enough about spiritual things that you take the time to think them over carefully before you answer. That’s not necessarily a common thing. So take all the time you need.

    While you work on your garden, perhaps you can think about why “Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it.” (Genesis 2:15) Is such work fulfilling? And why do we find gardens so enjoyable?

    TJ

  10. Pilgrim Says:

    Greetings and Happy Resurrection Sunday; for He is risen!

    TJ,

    You are absolutely correct when you said, “I believe that ALL of God’s purpose is intimately connected, and a good understanding of one aspect helps us to better understand another aspect.” I agree.

    And this is precisely how we are to correctly translate the Scriptures too! When we come across a verse that seems too hard to comprehend for our finite understanding or when it seems to contradict Scripture elsewhere, we must remember to always correctly interpret Scripture by understanding the context of a verse by its immediate surrounding verses and by the context of the whole Bible. Jehovah does not contradict Himself or make mistakes. I’m pretty sure you’ll agree with me on that.

    Now, back to Jesus. The reason this is of the utmost importance (even more vital than a correct understanding of God’s intention for the earth) is because you can be right on every doctrine of the Bible, but if you’re wrong on who Jesus is, then you are wrong for eternity!

    I did not see anything in the verses you cited that said Jesus was resurrected as a “spirit” or “spirit creature” but I can clearly see that reading those passages alone and without any other Scripture considered could lead one to the conclusion that you are forwarding.

    But I urge you to compare what your are attempting to apply to these verses with what other verses say about a “spiritual body/physical body,” specifically Jesus after the resurrection.

    In John 20:20-28 Jesus’ body was clearly physical. He spoke, He breathed on the disciples, and Thomas touched the body; even touching Jesus’ nail scars and the wound in His side that He received during His crucifixion—prior to resurrection.

    In Luke 24:36-43 Jesus displayed more evidence of a physical body. Here the disciples thought they saw a spirit, but Jesus corrected them and told them to look at His hands and feet [physical nail scars on a physical body]. He further corrected the disciples erroneous belief that He was a spirit by telling them that “a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:36-39). It doesn’t get any clearer than that. If Jesus was only resurrected as a spirit then He just lied to the disciples.

    If you were there TJ—believing that Jesus had resurrected as a spirit and not in His own physical body—He would have told you the same thing. Re-read those verses again and replace the word “disciples” with “TJ.”

    Now Jesus didn’t stop there. The disciples still could not believe it (Luke 24:41) so He asked for something to eat [physical bodies hunger and thirst] and He was given fish which He “took and ate it before them” (Luke 24:41-43).

    Jesus told them he was not a spirit, but that He had a physical body, then He proved it to them by eating food in front of them.

    In response to 1 Corinthains 15:50, (flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven) it too must be understood in context with the fact that Jesus claimed He was not a spirit (Luke 24:39) and all the proof he provided (in the verses cited above). It’s true, sinful flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, and stand before God, but a glorified risen Savior who knew no sin can and does.

    Here’s a question I leave you with: What would you do if the Bible said that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical one; that is, He resurrected in a physical body (as opposed to your thesis that it was spiritual only)? I’m not saying that it is there, I’m just asking you to honestly tell me if you’d believe Jesus rose in a physical body if the Bible actually said it, and especially if Jesus said it Himself?

    Thanks for your time. I am sorry this post went so long, I will try a little more brevity next time.

    - The Pilgrim

  11. onebeggarsbread Says:

    Okay…here’s my 2 cents, for what they’re worth (probably about 2 literal cents!). We had a wonderfully busy weekend, and yet the garden is still not quite ready to be seeded! I set my alarm for early this a.m. to wake up think through some of the questions I wanted to give thoughtful answers to. Then I hit the snooze button for an hour! ACK! I’m thankful the kids are tired from our weekend and are sleeping in a bit while I respond.

    These questions deserve more thought and attention, but LIFE beckons, so here are some short and sweet observations.

    TJ, you asked, “I’d like to ask you based on what God tells Adam at Genesis 1:28 and 2:15-17, do you think it was always God’s purpose for humans to die and go to heaven - or did he originally purpose for them to live on earth forever, so long as they were obedient?”

    I truly believe that God’s main purpose is to glorify Himself. I think He foreknew that Adam and Eve would sin. I think the plan to send Jesus as the final sacrifice, for our redemption, was a plan from the beginning – from before our beginning. I think God loves showing His amazingness through us “weak” humans! God is more glorified by the fact that we can’t do anything without Him. Although I find it hard to explain, I just don’t see God as a Plan B-kind-of-God. The Bible calls Him all-knowing, from everlasting to everlasting, and sovereign over all. I have to believe that everything that has taken place between Creation and now, even things against God’s desire, are permitted by Him and are going to be used for His glory and our pleasure. Augustine said it better than me, “In a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to God’s will [of desire] does not defeat his will [of decree]. For it would not be done did he not permit it, and of course his permission is not unwilling, but willing; nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done except that in his omnipotence he can turn evil into good.”

    I think it has been God’s intention to someday destroy the earth and make a new one (either completely destroying and making a new one, or wiping the surface area clean and rebuilding).

    For instance, as far back as Zephaniah, chapters 1 and 2, there are prophecies many think pertain to the end times. These scriptures plainly state that ALL men, and animals, will be wiped from the face of the earth. The New World Translations says it like this, “I shall without fail finish everything off the surface of the ground” and goes on to specifically include man and beast (the Hebrew word for “man” is “adamah” and means all the sons of Adam!). Verse 18 goes on to say “He will make an extermination…of all the inhabitants of the earth.”

    2 Peter 3:10-13 talks about the elements all around being melted with intense heat!

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be here when things get that hot!!

    Zephaniah 2 says that perhaps we will be hid in the day of God’s anger, if we are seeking Him. I think when Jesus came, He removed that “perhaps”and gives us plenty of assurance that we WILL be spared from God’s wrath.

    But, where will the place of safety be? We need a place to be safe from all the destruction. I don’t think one could surmise that this place of safety could be ANYWHERE on the planet (not even Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn) when the verses so clearly state He will wipe out all human life (and everything else) here with intense heat.

    I believe the only place of safety will be with Christ! IN Christ. In the air, in the heavens, I don’t know – just give me Jesus and I can rest assured in Him. I don’t know how and when things will “play out,” but I know He is the only place of safety. He who believes in the Son has eternal life (John 3:36). Not “he who believes in an earthly governing body.” Jesus alone is the way to the Father (John 14:6)

    Revelation 22 also says the old earth has passed away (NASB). The new things must really be altogether different since there won’t be a sea any longer and our light will now come from the Lamb (also chapter 21)! Wow! I can’t imagine. I want to study this further, but have had the general idea that the “new heavens and new earth” interact with one another and are somehow connected or intertwined. I really could care less if I am on the new earth or in heaven, as long as I am with Christ. That is what made me really sad, talking with my Jehovah’s Witnesses’ friends. Like I said in my post, it isn’t enough for me to be under God’s administration from a far away point. I yearn to be close to Him! I love the fact that I can “walk” with Him now, but I long for the day that I can truly be in His presence all the time. This is what I think of as the afterlife – being with Jesus. The exact location I don’t yet understand or foreknow :)

    Well. There’s my thoughts on one question. I’ll have to read through the rest of the comments and see if I have anything to add to the rest of the discussion at a later hour today!

    Oh wait, there was one question I wanted to ask you, TJ. Do you have the NWT Greek Interlinear? I borrowed one a few years ago and was shocked to see that where the Greek says anything about “knowing” Jehovah or Jesus, the NWT reads “taking in knowledge of” (the greek interlinear shows plainly the word “know.”) I was sitting here in my living room with a JW witness friend when I noticed the difference and almost fell out of my chair! To me, the focus changes completely from knowing someone to taking in knowledge of someone. If you have an interlinear, I would love to see if you can spot this difference, and would love to hear if you think reading the verses from the Greek make a difference in interpretation/meaning. John 17:3 is one example.

    Thanks again for stopping by!

  12. TJ Says:

    Hi Pilgrim,

    Thanks for the response. :) I agree with you that the context must be considered, so with that in mind, let’s take a look at the context of your evidence.

    You referenced John 20:20-28 and Luke 24:36-43 where Jesus appears in a physical body in front of his disciples. Simply because we know Jesus appeared *for a time* in a physical body, does that in itself prove that he did not actually ‘become a life-giving spirit’? (1 Corinthians 15:45) Well, branching out to the context of the entire Bible, we must remember that angels themselves are spirits. (Compare Hebrews 1:13, 14) Yet, there are several examples in the Bible where angels appeared with physical bodies temporarily. (For example: Genesis 19:1-3; Hebrews 13:2) Was this the case with Jesus? Let’s go to your accounts.

    In John 20:20-28, Jesus appears to his disciples and shows them the wounds in his hands and side. But take a look at verse 19 which precedes all of this:

    “On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you!’” (NIV)

    What’s interesting about this is that attention is drawn to the fact that Jesus’ disciples were in a LOCKED room, and THEN Jesus “came and stood among them” and gave them a greeting. So Jesus appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, in a locked room. Couldn’t that be the result of a spirit person temporarily materializing a physical body?

    And again at the beginning of your second account we read:

    “While they were still talking about this [sightings of Jesus], Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.” (NIV)

    Again we see that Jesus apparently appears out of nowhere, so that he even frightens his disciples into thinking they are seeing a ghost. The Greek word for “spirit”, which is used here, can ALSO mean a “ghost” or “apparition”. (Compare Mark 6:49, 50) So in order to calm his frightened disciples, he showed them how he was in a real person, in a physical body, which he WAS in at the time. The account continues in verse 39:

    “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (NIV)

    But there is more. Jesus did NOT always use the same physical appearance when he appeared. This is why others didn’t recognize him at times. Mary Magdalene “turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.” In fact, she was “thinking he was the gardener.” (John 20:14, 15; NIV)

    And when Jesus walked along with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus, they had no idea that it was Jesus they were speaking with until later that night, when “their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.” (Luke 24:31; NIV) Notice that it doesn’t say, ‘Jesus got up and left’ (which they wouldn’t have let him do anyways), rather it says that he “disappeared from their sight”. Only a spirit person could simply vanish before their eyes.

    So when we carefully examine the context of the accounts you provided of Jesus’ sudden appearances, we do indeed find evidence that Jesus was only temporarily materializing physical bodies, something other spirit persons have done in the Bible. He could create a body with the same wounds he had in his hands and in his side when he died so that his disciples could recognize him. So these accounts give reason to suspect that Jesus was not an ordinary physical being. But the statements wherein Jesus is said to have been resurrected as a spirit, on the other hand, are plain and clear.

    “‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam [Jesus], a life-giving spirit.” The immediate context of this verse makes it indisputable that Jesus was raised up in a spiritual body. Paul is arguing that anointed Christians will, like Christ, be resurrected with spiritual bodies and NOT physical ones:

    “Someone may ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’ . . . God gives it a body as he has determined . . . There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies . . . So will it be with the resurrection of the dead . . . it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body . . . So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven . . . And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:35-49; NIV)

    Anointed Christians will be “raised [with] a spiritual body” that they may “bear the likeness of the man from heaven.” In harmony with this, the Apostle Peter tells us, “Christ also died . . . that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18; RSV)

    You asked me, “What would you do if the Bible said that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical one; that is, He resurrected in a physical body (as opposed to your thesis that it was spiritual only)?”

    If I believed that the Bible said that, and that it all harmonized contextually, I would accept it. Really. But aside from all of the evidence I presented above, there is a more important issue here that your post didn’t address. And that is the sacrifice of Jesus’ human life.

    This was really my main point in my last response explaining why Jesus *could not* have regained his fleshly physical body that was put to death in our behalf. Jesus’ human life, along with his perfect human body, was SACRIFICED. He could not take it back without nullifying that sacrifice! This is why Jesus was resurrected back to life with a spiritual body, just as he had before he was sent to the earth to be born naturally in a physical, human body.

    I’d like to get your thoughts on that last point if I could, Pilgrim, since I feel that it is the fundamental reason why a physical resurrection is impossible.

    Many thanks,
    TJ

  13. TJ Says:

    Hi Deborah,

    I want to thank you for your thorough and thoughtful response. :) There are two areas that I have comments/questions in. And I realize that all of this may be waaaay too much to deal with right now, so there is definitely no rush.

    1. If God chooses to foreknow everything, as seems to be your general view, why would he even give Adam the option that he could live forever if he obeyed; that is, if Adam was *destined* to sin, why even go through the ‘charade’ that he could choose?

    And if God foreknows everything, why is it that he “brought [the animals] to the man *to see* what he would call them”? Didn’t God already know what Adam would call them? (Genesis 2:19; NASB)

    2. You brought up the new earth in Revelation 21, which is described as no longer having any seas. That is interesting, isn’t it? As you probably know, Revelation is a book that uses a lot of symbols. So could it be that “the sea” here is referring more to what Isaiah was talking about? (Isaiah 57:20)

    Furthermore, take a moment and read the entire passage carefully, if you would:

    “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, ‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.’” (Revelation 21:1-4; NASB)

    So if we have a new heaven and earth, and the New Jerusalem comes DOWN out of heaven from God, so that “the tabernacle of God is among men”, doesn’t that imply that humans are living on that new earth? And since “there will no longer be any death”, doesn’t that imply that these humans will be living forever on earth?

    Now to your question. Yes, I do own a “Kingdom Interlinear”. At John 17:3 it reads “they may be knowing” for the pertinent Greek word, whereas the NWT reads, as you note, “their taking in knowledge”. Why the difference?

    The root of that Greek word there means simply “to know”. But this specific verb is in the present active subjunctive (sorry for the grammar-speak), which basically means it is “implying a continuous process.” (Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament; p. 336) So the “knowing” is never complete, it is an ongoing process, and the NWT brings this out nicely with “their taking in knowledge”. An interlinear is more concerned with giving basic definitions to the word than bringing out such nuances.

    So the Greek means essentially the same as the NWT, we must *continue* to learn about Jehovah God.

    Thanks,
    TJ

  14. TJ Says:

    Hey Pilgrim,

    Just a quick correction; where I wrote, “So in order to calm his frightened disciples, he showed them how he was in a real person, in a physical body, which he WAS in at the time.”, it SHOULD say:

    “So in order to calm his frightened disciples, he showed them how he was a real person, in a physical body, which he WAS in at the time.”

    Thanks,
    TJ

  15. Pilgrim Says:

    Dear TJ:

    (I must practice brevity, I must practice brevity, I must practice brevity . . . )

    What I’m noticing in your case against the physical bodily resurrection of Christ is that the clear evidence is put on the back burner for the “must-be’s.”

    - Because Jesus appeared in a locked room, it “must-be” because He was a spirit.

    - Because Mary and the two men on the road to Emmaus didn’t immediately recognize Jesus, it “must be” because He was a spirit possessing different bodies.

    - Because Jesus disappeared from their sight it “must be” because He was a spirit.

    What about all those times the Jews tried to kill Him and He vanished from the crowd because it was not His time yet? You’d agree that He was certainly in a physical body then, but using the “must be” theory you’re proposing, this means His escape from those situation “must be” because He was a spirit.

    You also said, “we do indeed find evidence that Jesus was only temporarily materializing physical bodies, something other spirit persons have done in the Bible. He could create a body with the same wounds he had in his hands and in his side when he died so that his disciples could recognize him.”

    Where do the Scriptures say Jesus temporarily materialized in physical bodies? It doesn’t. This “proof” that you speak of is not found in the Bible; it’s pure presumption.

    You’re assuming this because it is the only thing that fits the model that you’re forwarding. You’ve started with the “spirit creature” pretext and are trying to make the pieces fit.

    You are attempting to use the 1 Cor. 15:45 as “proof” at the exclusion of the real tangible Biblical proof that Jesus resurrected in His own physical body. You can take one verse, and without a clear understanding of the context of the whole Scriptures, make it sound a certain way. This can be done thousands of times throughout the Bible on various topics.

    And I’d agree with you if 1 Cor. 15:45 was the only verse that we had in the Biblical text on the subject. However, the Bible affords us numerous proofs that Jesus resurrected in His physical body that render the verse you cited incapable of meaning what you’re trying to make it say. This is why we must interpret each verse by the whole of the Scriptures, otherwise we’re pounding square pegs into round holes.

    Let’s recap:
    - John 20:20-28 Thomas touched the physical body of Jesus Christ.

    - Luke 24:36-43 The disciples thought they saw a spirit (ghost, apparition, vapor, smoke, shadow, Leprechaun or whatever else you want to insert here) but Jesus corrected them! He told them to look at Him [His physical body and His physical scars] and said a spirit (or whatever you want to add there) “does not have flesh and bones AS YOU SEE THAT I HAVE.” If His body was not physically resurrected then Jesus just lied to His disciples because if He was really a spirit (as you’re implying 1 Cor. 15:45 says) He just led them to believe He was not! This creates a huge dilemma for you (including contradictions in the Bible) if you hold to the theory that 1 Cor. 15:45 means that Jesus resurrected as a “spirit creature.” However, in context with the rest of Scripture, this harmonizes perfectly!

    - The Bile explains rather clearly in Luke 24 that the reason the two men on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus had nothing to do with His body but and everything to do with them! This is where context is so important.

    “Their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.” (v.16)

    “Their eyes were opened and they recognized Him.” (v31)

    The miracle/phenomenon was in their eyes, not Jesus’ body.
    Since the event with Mary at the tomb is silent about why she did not recognize Him, you must interpret it with what has already been revealed in Scripture (Luke 24:16, 31) not apply your (or someone else’s) assumptions as to why (i.e. well it “must be” because He was a spirit creature). This is when we fall into error.

    Now in regards to your question about Jesus’ body not being able to resurrect because it was offered as a sacrifice is another “must be” and pure conjecture. You’re injecting this opinion into the text based solely on the “spirit creature” presuppositions that you have already come to believe. Where does it say that once He lays His body down He is prohibited from raising it again? The exact opposite is true. Jesus was clear when He said “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later” (Mark 9:31).

    Finally, you said that if the Bible said Jesus resurrected in His own body that you would believe it. I hope and pray that you are honestly and earnestly seeking the truth above all things.

    The last proof of Jesus’ resurrection I will offer today (that is fully supported by the Bible) is Jesus’ own words. I will quote John 2:18-20 verbatim from the latest edition of your own NWT (the black cover):

    Therefore in answer, the Jews said to Him: “What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?” In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Therefore the Jews said: “This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” BUT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TEMPLE OF HIS BODY. (Capitalization emphasis mine).

    Thank you for your time.

    Sincerely,
    - The Pilgrim

    “But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and our faith is in vain. Moreover, we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we have borne witness against God that He raised up the Christ . . .” 1 Corinthians 15:14-15 (NWT)

  16. TJ Says:

    Hi Pilgrim,

    Thanks for your response. I don’t want you to get frustrated by my disagreeing with you, but please know that I sincerely and honestly believe the things I’m writing.

    You said, “What about all those times the Jews tried to kill Him and He vanished from the crowd because it was not His time yet?”

    That’s explained quite differently though, it says that he walked through the crowd, not that he disappeared from their sight. (Compare Luke 4:30) That’s a big difference. On top of it, the two disciples he “disappeared” from wouldn’t have let him leave, especially when they found out that he was the Christ.

    You asked, “Where do the Scriptures say Jesus temporarily materialized in physical bodies? It doesn’t. This ‘proof’ that you speak of is not found in the Bible; it’s pure presumption.”

    It’s a reasonable conclusion. I have provided proof of angels temporarily becoming physical beings; spirit persons have that power. Jacob even wrestled with one. Are you denying that spirit persons can take on a physical form?

    You said, “You are attempting to use the 1 Cor. 15:45 as ‘proof’ at the exclusion of the real tangible Biblical proof that Jesus resurrected in His own physical body. You can take one verse, and without a clear understanding of the context of the whole Scriptures, make it sound a certain way. This can be done thousands of times throughout the Bible on various topics.”

    If you look back to my post, you’ll see that I went out of my way to post as much of the immediate context to 1 Corinthians 15:45 as possible, in addition to a more extending context. Instead of just saying that I’m taking that one verse out of context, it would be more helpful if you could explain what 1 Corinthians 15:45 means according to your beliefs.

    Just telling a person that a verse is taken out of context without any further explanation isn’t a very compelling argument. So why is it, in the context of explaining what types of bodies anointed Christians will be resurrected with, Paul says that they will be “raised [with] a spiritual body” and that they will “bear the likeness of the man from heaven”? Doesn’t this deserve an explanation?

    You said, “Now in regards to your question about Jesus’ body not being able to resurrect because it was offered as a sacrifice is another ‘must be’ and pure conjecture . . . Where does it say that once He lays His body down He is prohibited from raising it again? The exact opposite is true. Jesus was clear when He said “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later” (Mark 9:31).”

    Pilgrim, I do believe that ‘he rose three days later’. That is not in dispute at all. He was raised as a spirit and NOT as a human. Again this is plain even at 1 Peter 3:18. As for the sacrifice, perhaps you can just tell me what exactly WAS sacrificed in your view. I honestly don’t know. Is it your position that when Jesus told his disciples, “This is my body *given* for you” and “my blood, which is *poured out* for you”, he actually took those back?

    You finished with John 2:18-20, but like with Mark 9:31, this verse does not conflict with my view. 1 Corinthians 15:44 points out, “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” Just as the literal temple had been destroyed and rebuilt with different materials, it was still the temple. Jesus’ (perfect) fleshly body was destroyed, serving as a sacrifice for the sin of a perfect man, and three days later God raised him in his new spirit body. Thus, his ‘temple’ was destroyed and raised.

    Recognizing the spiritual body he was resurrected with helps us to understand why Jesus prayed shortly before his death, “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (John 17:5) He was looking forward to getting back the glory that a heavenly, spiritual body has over an earthly, physical one, for “there are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.” (1 Corinthians 15:40)

    Many thanks,
    TJ

  17. Pilgrim Says:

    - Is a physical resurrection even possible? Certainly. Do we have examples of someone being raised physically from the dead? Yes. Here are some examples (other than Jesus’ physical bodily resurrection):
    A). Elijah did it in 1 Kings 17:17-23 when he raised a child.
    B). Elisha did it in 2 Kings 4:18-37 when he raised a child.
    C). Jesus did it in Matthew 9:18-26 when He raised a 12 year old girl.
    D). Jesus did it again in John 11:38-44 when He raised Lazarus.

    - “Flesh and Blood” can’t inherit the Kingdom of God, but what “body” is capable of inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50)? A spiritual one! But do not assume that a spiritual body means an invisible, non-physical entity. It does not say that, you are adding that definition to the text which the text does not expressly say.

    - “Flesh and blood” is an expression used to illustrate mortal humanity. Does the use of the term flesh and blood always mean the physical, muscle, tissue, epidermis as you are suggesting? Consider Jesus’ remark to Peter about Who revealed the truth to him in Matt. 16:17, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven.” Was Jesus referring to someone’s skin? Of course not. He was using the flesh and blood phrase as an illustration of mortal man compared to immortal Jehovah. More specifically this could read “corruptible, perishable man” as opposed to “incorruptible, imperishable God.” Consider the following verses where the use of the term “flesh” is not referring to literal flesh, but an idiom for man’s mortal condition:
    A). Genesis 2:24
    B). Job 19:26
    C). Psalm 84:2
    D). Matthew 26:41
    E). John 6:56
    F). Romans 9:8
    G). 1 Corinthians 15:50
    H). 2 Corinthians 12:7
    I). Ephesians 2:3
    J). 1 John 2:16

    - So what is a spiritual body? One that has been added to, not taken away from. Our perishable body will PUT ON the imperishable; our mortal body will PUT ON immortality. If you continue reading after 1 Cor. 15:50 you will see this. Nothing is taken away, (i.e. physical body), but instead we are added to when our bodies are glorified in the resurrection.

    - If the meaning of the term spiritual “must be” invisible, immaterial, void of a physical body, then what was Adam? Wouldn’t it be logical to apply your same conclusion to Adam when it refers to him as a “living soul” as seen in 1 Cor. 15:45? Of course not because we know Adam had a physical body. So what causes you to assume that the term lif-giving spirit means Jesus “must be” a spirit creature and a living soul “must be” a physical man? You didn’t get it from the Scriptures because when Paul uses the same term to describe a spiritual man in 1 Cor. 2:15 he certainly didn’t mean an invisible, non-physical, immaterial, spirit creature, did he?

    - It’s been your position from the beginning that a “spiritual body” must mean an invisible, immaterial, non-physical entity. However, Scripture does not support this. In 1 Cor. 15:44 it speaks of a spiritual body, but you assume and conclude that a spiritual body must not and can not have a physical body with physical attributes. Why not? You appear to be putting your faith in and relying on the Watchtower’s understanding of the two bodies (physical vs spiritual) as opposed to the intended meaning of the writer of 1 Corinthians. This would be expected if you believe that the Watchtower is inspired and speaks for God. But that’s a can of worms we don’t want to open considering all the mistakes, flip flops and changes in doctrine the Watchtower has made over the years.

    - What exactly is a spiritual body then? Between verses 37 – 44 of 1 Cor. 15 the word “body” is used ten times but nowhere does it say that a spiritual body is invisible or immaterial. So as any good student of hermeneutics would do when we come to a text that is not expressly clear, (instead of applying our presuppositions to it to make it say what we want it to say) we interpret Scripture that is unclear with Scripture that is clear—always Knowing that the Bible does not contradict itself. So do we have an example of what a spiritual body is and does? Certainly.
    A). After His resurrection Jesus ate physical food.
    B). After his resurrection Jesus bore the same physical scars on His body suffered from His crucifixion.

    But that’s not all . . .

    - Jesus Himself gave the two most convincing arguments as to His physical bodily resurrection:

    A). Jesus said tear down “this temple” and in 3 days I will raise “it” up. What is “it”? The temple of His body [Greek: Soma]. In every instance that the NT uses the word Soma in reference to a person it is always—without exception—speaking of the physical body.

    B). Jesus, after seeing that His disciples thought He was a spirit (ironically the very same thing you are saying now), He corrected the disciples telling them to look at Him because a spirit DOES NOT have a body of flesh and blood LIKE YOU SEE I HAVE.” He is correcting you here too TJ if you put your presuppositions aside and read the plain text!

    - If Jesus materialized in a body that wasn’t His and told His disciples that He was not a spirit but a body of flesh and bone when (as you suggest) He really was a spirit, then Jesus would have been a great deceiver. What He did and said would have been a lie—there’s no way around that. To believe your theory this means Jesus purposely misled them (and me). That is despicable to even consider, let alone teach to others!

    - If Jesus only resurrected as a spirit creature, leaving His body behind, where is the body now? According to Acts 2:31 His body never saw decay, so you must account for a deceased cadaver that was subject to decomposition.

    - If you use the argument that angels took on bodies so it “must be” the same idea with Jesus taking on a body, then where does that logic end? I could “prove” to you (using selected Scripture at the exclusion of other Scripture) that Peter was Jesus. Peter walked on water, Jesus did that; he healed the sick, Jesus did that; he cast out demons, Jesus did that. Using this argument this “must be” because Peter is Jesus, right? Of course not. You know this is absurd. Yet you make exception for your non-physical resurrection thesis because since angels took on physical bodies, this “proves” that Jesus “must be” a spirit creature too.

    - The Bile explains clearly in Luke 24 that the reason the two men on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Jesus had nothing to do with Him being an invisible spirit creature needing to possess physical bodies, but that it was their eyes that were kept from recognizing Him. And then it was their eyes that were “opened” to recognize Him. To suggest otherwise is a very deceptive twist of Scripture.

    “Their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him.” (v.16)
    “Their eyes were opened and they recognized Him.” (v31)

    This event was the result of what happened to their eyes, not Jesus’ body. This same understanding can be applied to Mary at the tomb even as she “supposed” He was the gardener through her weeping tears. Again, this is when interpreting unclear Scripture with clear Scripture (Luke 24:16, 31) is essential to avoid falling into error.

    - There was no rule, law, construct, or other mandate that prohibited Jesus from resurrecting in His body after He offered it as a sacrifice as you suggest. Your hop-scotching to Communion as proof is not applicable here. He was speaking symbolically of the elements (unless of course you’re Catholic) and had not even gone to the cross yet. But more importantly, Jesus Himself said that not only does He lay down His life, but that He will take it up again. He had authority to lay it down and take it up (John 10:14-18). This clearly refutes your Scripturally unsupported theory that His sacrifice was bound by some sort of “no take-backs” rule. I will take Jesus’ words here (as in every case) over Watchtower teaching.

    Respectfully,

    - The Pilgrim

  18. TJ Says:

    Hi Pilgrim,

    Most of the points you wrote about above I feel that I have dealt with already, so I won’t go over them again. We can let Deborah read over our respective arguments (which you’ll probably agree are long enough) and decide for herself which is better supported by the scriptures. And if she has any questions or wants further clarification, we can provide that.

    Many thanks,
    TJ

  19. fourpointer Says:

    Hope y’all don’t mind me jumping into the fray :)

    It seems as though what is at the base of the disagreement over how Jesus passed through walls is the idea of who Jesus was to begin with. Pilgrim (like myself) believes that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:14), thus it was no small feat for Him to do so. TJ, as a Jehovah’s Witness, would I be correct in assuming you believe Jesus was simply an incarnation of Michael the Archangel? Would this explain your many references to angels in your comments? If so, could you please provide–from the Bible (you may use the New World Translation (NWT) if you wish)–book/chapter/verse evidence for this belief?

    As far as the question “Whom say ye that I am?” there is adequate evidence from the Bible–even from the NWT–that Jesus is Jehovah.

    John 1:3-43 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. So we see that ALL things–including life iself–came into existence by means of Christ Jesus. All things, visible and invisible (Colossians 1:16), were created by Christ.

    However, what does the prophet Isaiah have to say about Jehovah? Isaiah 44:24 (NWT)24 This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?
    Isaiah 45:18 (NWT)18 For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

    Look at that last little phrase in 44:24. “Who was with Me?” Jehovah is implying that when He created all things and stretched out the heavens, no one was with Him. If this is the case, then what role did Jesus play in creation?

    Reading John 1:3-4 with Isaiah 44:24 and Isaiah 45:18, from their own translation, the Watchtower position hits a snag. John wrote that all things–every single thing, without exception–came into existence by Christ. Yet Isaiah writes that Jehovah created all things by Himself–a loneness that leads Him to ask the rhetorical question “Who was with Me?”

    Now, here’s the dilemma: Did Jesus create all things? Or did Jehovah create all things by Himself, with no one else’s help? The question is moot. Jehovah created all things. Jesus created all things. The only logical conclusion one can draw is that Jesus is, indeed, Jehovah.

  20. TJ Says:

    Hello fourpointer,

    You bring up a fair question that we are asked quite often. If Jesus created and Jehovah created, and yet there is only one creator, aren’t they both God? Our position can be summed up by what Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

    “for us there is but one God, the Father, *from* whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, *through* whom all things came and through whom we live.” (1 Corinthians 8:6; NIV)

    Jehovah, the Father, is the source of all creation, all things came *from* him. Yet Jesus too had a hand in creation. All things came *through* him; he was the agent that Jehovah used in creating all things. Thus there is a distinct difference in their respective roles, though they could both rightly be termed ‘creators’.

    You referenced Colossians 1:16 for proof that Jesus had a hand in creating all things. We agree that he did, in this agency role. In the verse immediately before that, Jesus is called the “firstborn of creation.” So he was himself *a part* of creation, though he was the very first and only direct creation by Jehovah.

    You also referenced Isaiah 44 and 45, paragraphs that come up often in a discussion like this. A quick examination of the context shows that Jehovah is comparing himself to the empty idols, the false gods, of the nations. Those gods, contrary to the claims made about them, had nothing to do with creation; Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, is the only one that actually did. So this is *not* a discussion of whether or not God used a servant of his, acting through that one, in creating things. There is no snag here in our understanding.

    This can be made more evident by considering how in Isaiah 43:11 Jehovah says that “apart from me there is no savior.” That’s a very definite statement. Yet again, this is understood as a comparison to the false gods and has nothing to do with whether or not Jehovah uses others to save *through*. Other saviors *do* exist in the Bible, ones sent by Jehovah to save, such as the judges Othniel and Ehud. (Judges 3:9, 15) Even earlier in this same book, Jehovah promises to send Egypt a savior to deliver them. (Isaiah 19:20) That does not make that savior Jehovah himself, that one is merely an agent of Jehovah.

    So it is logical to conclude that Jehovah created all things (those being from him) and Jesus created all things (those being through him), and yet Jehovah was the only creator in an *absolute* sense. Jesus was a worker carrying out Jehovah’s will. (Compare John 5:30)

    As to your question about Michael, we do believe that it can be inferred that Michael is another name for Jesus, as other theologians down through the centuries have also concluded. But this was not the reason for my references to angels per se. We believe the Bible teaches that all those who live in the heavens (Jehovah, Jesus, the angels, resurrected Christians) have spiritual bodies. 1 Corinthians 15 makes the same comparison between “heavenly bodies” and “earthly bodies” as it does between the “spiritual body” and “physical body”. So if some spirits from heaven, in this case angels, can take on earthly, physical bodies for a time while visiting those on earth, it would seem reasonable that Jesus, who was resurrected to live in heaven, would also have the ability to take on a physical body for a time while appearing to humans.

    Thanks,
    TJ

  21. fourpointer Says:

    TJ–

    You said,

    You also referenced Isaiah 44 and 45, paragraphs that come up often in a discussion like this. A quick examination of the context shows that Jehovah is comparing himself to the empty idols, the false gods, of the nations. Those gods, contrary to the claims made about them, had nothing to do with creation; Jehovah, the God of the Israelites, is the only one that actually did. So this is *not* a discussion of whether or not God used a servant of his, acting through that one, in creating things. There is no snag here in our understanding.

    Actually, it is a discussion of this very thing. While the context of these two chapters is the futility of false idols, Jehovah is very emphatic about His role as the ONLY Creator, having no one to help Him. Hence the rhetorical question at the end of 44:24, “Who was with Me?” He was saying that no one was with Him when He “stretched out the heavens all alone and spread abroad the earth by Myself.”

    As far as Christ being the “firstborn over creation.” In order to understand what is meant by that passage in Colossians, we need to look at the passage as a whole. Verse 15 says, “He is the image of the invisible God.” Man may have been made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), but Christ IS the image of God (see also Hebrews 1:3).

    Then, in verse 16, it says that Christ is “firstborn of creation” because He IS the author of creation. “By Him ALL THINGS were created that are in heaven and that are on earth…whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.” (I won’t get into the faulty addition of the word “other” to the NWT here.) That last part is interesting. The phrase “principalities and powers” is found 6 times in the New Testament—5 of those times it refers to the spiritual (angelic) realm (Rom 8:38; Eph. 3:10; Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:16; Col. 2:15). By understanding this phrase properly we can see that Christ created even the angels.

    That said, look at Nehemiah 9:6 (NWT). “You are Jehovah alone; you yourself have made the heavens, [even] the heaven of the heavens, and all their army, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them; and you are preserving all of them alive; and the army of the heavens are bowing down to you” (See also Hebrews 1:6). Comparing these two verses, we can see that Jesus created the angels, and they worship Him. Yet, in Isaiah 42:8, Jehovah says, “I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images.” Now, would Jehovah, who shares His glory with no other, allow the angels to worship another—especially another angel?

    Then, in Colossians 1:18 (NWT), it says, “and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things.” Notice it says He is the “firstborn of the dead.” He is “firstborn of creation” because He created it, now He is firstborn of the dead because His was the first body to be raised from the grave to incorruption (see Matthew 27:51-52). Also, this is the fulfillment of the picture given to us by the Feast of Firstfruits (Exodus 23:16). He was raised first in order to be the firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29). The term “firstborn” points to His position, not necessarily time or order.

    PS—could you please provide book/chapter/verse for the Jesus/Michael belief? Or which theologians taught this?

  22. onebeggarsbread Says:

    Wow! This discussion has been great to read!

    I’m sorry I haven’t been more of a participant, but it actually has been lovely to have a bird’s eye view.

    As far as the discussion regarding Jesus’ resurrection, it seems like the scripture plainly leads one to believe that He bodily resurrected. I was considering whether someone would need to be drawn to another conclusion by an outside party to come to a different conclusion. I wondered if anyone would consider the spirt-only resurrection and Jehovah disentegrating the body from scripture alone? It just seems that the plain reading of scripture would lead one to believe Jesus died, was buried, came back to life — that simple.

    “They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago,…” (Watchtower; Aug. 15, 1981; p. 29)

    I find it WILD that even Watchtower admits that reading the Bible alone won’t lead you to believe what They think you should believe. This was the first thing Abbie’s niece and I spoke about, whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses encourage reading of scripture, alone. I had a quote written down somewhere by one of the early leaders (Rutherford, I think) but I know if I go search through my notes for it I’ll miss my little window of time to write here (I’m letting the kids sleep in, but they won’t sleep long!). I can add the info later…

    When FourPointer observed that the resurrection question goes back to more foundational beliefs, whether one sees Jesus as Jehovah or Jesus as Michael — a light bulb went off for me. That makes a lot of sense. Again, with this foundational question, I wonder if ANYONE would come to the conclusion that Jesus is Michael using scripture ALONE?

    One of the things I had wanted to do with this post was to add links to notes I had made while meeting with Abbie. As soon as I can type them up I will do that. One little research project I did was on Watchtower prophecies. I was shocked to find how strongly they told believers certain things would happen. From what I hear, if you were not going along with those ideas you would be disfellowshipped — but then WT would do a 180 degree change — ouch! I have to say that I would FEAR putting my complete trust in fallible man. Watchtower is not an organization that should be held as an authority above scripture. But, when they say that you cannot read the Bible without their counsel, they are doing just that.

    Another set of notes I wanted to type up were in regard to the Should You Believe in the Trinity booklet given to me by Abbie. When I first read the booklet, it did cause me to wonder, especially about the historical teachings on the trinity. But, after lots of research and hunting down of original resources, I was SHOCKED to discover how many, many quotes were taken so far out of context they didn’t even resemble the original meaning of the authors. I looked up enough original sources to become convinced that Watchtower was painting an untrue picture for me, causing me to doubt on false premises. That really bothered me, that a group would be so deceitful — I took it personally, actually!

    I would like to know TJ, if you hold the Watchtower teachings above scripture? Acts 17:11 says to carefully examine the scriptures daily. And since you have a Kingdom Interlinear, you have the opportunity to read scripture almost word for word. I hope you take advantage of that opportunity.

    I will post my notes from discussions with Abbie soon, and link them back to this post.

    Keep up the discussion as long you guys like! I enjoy reading it.

  23. TJ Says:

    Hello fourpointer,

    In regards to Isiaiah 44 and 45, you said, “While the context of these two chapters is the futility of false idols, Jehovah is very emphatic about His role as the ONLY Creator.” The problem is that you have failed to deal with my counter example that is just as clear that Jehovah is the ONLY savior, yet other servants of God are called saviors in Scripture. So according to the kind of logic you are using Othniel and Ehud MUST be Jehovah.

    You said that Jesus is “‘firstborn of creation’ because He created it.” Perhaps you can provide an example from scripture, of a person or thing being described as a firstborn of a group, wherein that person or thing is NOT a member of that group. There are many instances of ‘firstborns’ in scripture, yet you seem to be using this word here in a different sense from the others.

    As to the topic of Michael, is there a reason that you want to get into this subject immediately? In the interest of trying to keep things more focused for now, I think it may be better to wait before getting into that.

    Thanks,
    TJ

  24. TJ Says:

    Hi Deborah,

    I’m glad that you are enjoying the discussion. You said above, “it seems like the scripture plainly leads one to believe that He bodily resurrected.” This seems to be a recurring misunderstanding on this topic. I am NOT saying that scripture teaches that Jesus was resurrected without a body at all, but that he was resurrected with a spirit body. So I’m not sure you fully understand what I’m saying when you say, “It just seems that the plain reading of scripture would lead one to believe Jesus died, was buried, came back to life — that simple.” We DO believe that! He was ‘put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.’ (1 Peter 3:18)

    You said in regards to the Trinity brochure, “after lots of research and hunting down of original resources, I was SHOCKED to discover how many, many quotes were taken so far out of context they didn’t even resemble the original meaning of the authors.” Deborah, did you really search down these resources by yourself, read through them, and come to that conclusion OR did you mainly read a publication that attempted to show that these were taken out of context? Could you please provide an example of a quote that was ‘taken so far out of context it didn’t even resemble the original meaning of the author’?

    And will you be answering my last post to you?

    Thanks,
    TJ

  25. onebeggarsbread Says:

    TJ,

    I responded to your inquiries about my experience with the “Should You Believe in the Trinity” booklet via a new post — it’s just waiting for the hubster to read through it and make sure their are no glaring errors before I hit “publish.”

    As far as the questions I need to be answering…let’s see if I can find the right ones in all these messages :)

    I believe these are them:

    1. ‘If God chooses to foreknow everything, as seems to be your general view, why would he even give Adam the option that he could live forever if he obeyed; that is, if Adam was *destined* to sin, why even go through the ‘charade’ that he could choose?’

    ‘And if God foreknows everything, why is it that he “brought [the animals] to the man *to see* what he would call them”? Didn’t God already know what Adam would call them? (Genesis 2:19; NASB)’

    These questions are so deep. And it would take so much time to explain how I think the dance between predestination and free will is accomplished. I think both are biblical. This is a cheesy answer, but if you look through my posts labeled “Reformed Theology” you would see a bit of our journey towards a more Reformed perspective. Here’s a post on Free Will v. God’s Sovereignty, where I mostly quote other theologians on their explanations of the subject and interact a bit with their thoughts. We are in the process of figuring out and understanding these great mysteries, and I believe this is an in-house discussion that should be talked over tables of Christian fellowship.

    http://onebeggarsbread.wordpress.com/2006/03/30/free-will-and-calvinism/

    2. ‘You brought up the new earth in Revelation 21, which is described as no longer having any seas. That is interesting, isn’t it? As you probably know, Revelation is a book that uses a lot of symbols. So could it be that “the sea” here is referring more to what Isaiah was talking about? (Isaiah 57:20)’

    Revelation is full of symbolism, yes. I don’t claim to be an expert on end times theology, either. And I certainly cannot understand why God would not want the beautiful ocean to remain for eternity — except that I know he has bigger and better plans than I can imagine.

    But, I do think we should apply the general rule that a passage in and of itself should be taken either literally or symbolically. I don’t think we can pick and choose different parts of a passage and interpret them different ways. I don’t feel I have studied Revelation enough to answer whether these verses are symbolic or not — sorry, probably not the opinionated answer you were hoping for :)

    However, I think Isaiah 57:20 is simply stating there is no peace for the wicked man. I don’t see the “sea” mentioned in Isaiah being in any way correlated with the absence of a sea in eternal life.

    3 (not numbered, but it was the next question I think) “So if we have a new heaven and earth, and the New Jerusalem comes DOWN out of heaven from God, so that “the tabernacle of God is among men”, doesn’t that imply that humans are living on that new earth? And since “there will no longer be any death”, doesn’t that imply that these humans will be living forever on earth?”

    I see no reason to disagree with you on this one! Sure — new earth, humans on it, no more death, somehow connected to a New Jerusalem that pops out of heaven, God living amongst us. Sounds wonderful.

    As far as the discussion on the resurrection of Christ, I don’t feel ready to comment, because I haven’t quite yet grasped the importance of the argument. I will pray and read over the thoughts presented here and scriptures about Jesus’ resurrection this week.

    Whew! That’s it for now! Please see the new post for reference to one of the quotes I found in the Should You Believe in the Trinity booklet.

    TJ, I admire your gumption in juggling all these conversations!

    Thanks to the others for chiming in as well!

    Deborah

  26. TJ Says:

    Hi Deborah,

    Thank you for your response. :) I’m glad that you’d agree that there is a new earth in store where righteous humans will be living. If this is the case, then it would seem that it was indeed always God’s plan for the earth to be inhabited by faithful humans, don’t you think?

    As to the topic of Jesus’ resurrection body, I can’t say that I know why the teaching that he retained his actual fleshly body is important to others’ beliefs. But I do know why I cannot accept such a teaching. It fundamentally conflicts with how I understand the *meaning* of the ransom sacrifice. Jesus left a spirit existence to take up a fleshly one *for the purpose that* he could give up that fleshly existence in our behalf. That is what was sacrificed! The Jewish people were well acquainted with the concept of a sacrifice, and it was *not* something that you were able to retain.

    The sacrifice of a perfect human (Jesus) was necessary to cover over the sin of a perfect human (Adam). Jesus could not ‘be made alive’ in the flesh because his perfect human existence was freely given up in our behalf to account for the perfect human existence that Adam lost for us. This “ransom” payment bought our freedom from sin and death. So if we approach this topic from this perspective, it becomes obvious that Jesus could not still be in a fleshly existence, but *must* be in a spirit one.

    Many thanks for allowing the discussion on your blog,
    TJ

  27. fourpointer Says:

    TJ,

    When we read about men like Othniel and Ehud being referred to as “saviors,” we need to remember context. In other words, in what way were these men “saviors”? In Judges, and even 2nd Kings 13:5, the context is, of course, temporary physical victory over an earthly adversary. However, in passages like Isaiah 43:3, 43:11, 45:15; Luke 2:11; Titus 2:13, and others like them that refer to Jehovah or Jesus being “Savior,” more often than not the context is salvation from the ultimate enemy, Satan. So, now that I’ve answered your question about “saviors,” will you also answer my question about where in the Bible the Watchtower finds their “proof” that Jesus was Michael? (The reason I am “getting into this subject immediately” is because it speaks to who Jesus is. And if we have a wrong view of who Jesus is, then nothing else we believe matters.)

    As far as the matter of whether Jehovah or Jesus was the only Creator: suppose I tell you I built a house all by myself, with my own two hands. Then I tell you later that, well, I only drew up the plans, while my Son did the building part. Could I still say I built that house “by myself”? If I said that I spread the concrete for the basement “by myself,” but then told you later that my son did the work, did I really do that “by myself,” or “all alone”? No. Therefore, since Jehovah said He did the work of creation by Himself (Isaiah 44:24), but we see that nothing was created that was not created by Christ (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16), Jesus must be Jehovah.

    Now, Jesus being the “firstborn over creation.” You said, “Perhaps you can provide an example from scripture, of a person or thing being described as a firstborn of a group, wherein that person or thing is NOT a member of that group.” Fair question. This is why He was fully human in His incarnation. He took on flesh that He might know our weaknesses (Hebrews 2:14), that though He was tempted in all things (Hebrews 4:15), that He might learn obedience (Hebrews 5:8), so that by His obedience He may be given the name that is above every name (Philippians 2:9). Jesus came in the form of man so that in the flesh He might be the “firstborn among many brethren” (Hebrews 2:11), He might experience death (Genesis 3:15), show Himself to be victorious over death (1st Corinthians 15:55), and be the firstborn of the dead (Colossians 1:18, “that He might have the preeminence.”) For these reasons He can be called “Firstborn over all creation.” Because not only did He create it, He dwelt among it (John 1:14), and took on the sinful flesh of it (Romans 8:3; Philippians 2:7-8).

  28. TJ Says:

    Hi fourpointer,

    Thanks for your response. I’ve divided it into numbered sections since we are talking on a few subjects.

    1) Your point that we need to remember context is right on. So when Jehovah says that he was the lone creator, just as he claims to be the lone savior, the context shows us that he is matching himself up against false gods. These ones do not have the power to create, nor do they have the power to save. Thus, when considering these rival gods, Jehovah ALONE emerges as the only creator and only savior. When you take a single verse out of this very specific c