Thread: How was the "temple" raised?
February 10th 2009, 07:39 PM #46
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
You are labouring under the false assumption that this is an EITHER/OR situation, whereas it is in fact BOTH/AND. These verses from John's gospel that Jesus ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED in the resurrection of His body IN NO WAY DENIES THE FATHER'S INVOLVEMENT, just as when Jesus is described in the Bible as the Creator IN NO WAY DENIES THE FATHER'S INVOLVEMENT. It was a JOINT EFFORT, so verses stating one's participation DOES NOT DENY the other's.
Note Jesus WAS NOT raised as a SPIRIT (a mistake the disciples first made and which Jesus EXPLICITLY DENIED - Luke 24:36-42 NASB), but in a physical body dominated by the Spirit, IOW - spiritUAL.
Keep in mind that Elijah never died, but was carried up alive into heaven. Also note that the Two Witnesses in the Book of Revelation (Rev. 11:3-6) who confront the Antichrist perform the same miracles as Elijah and Moses - the same 2 prophets who appeared to Christ on the mount of Transfiguration. (Mat. 17:1-3)
"Thomas asked to see the imprints from the original nails but that body is gone. I know, I'll fabricate some that will look just like the ones he asked for - he'll never know the difference - and there's no point bothering to explain that he is not getting what he asked for because it would get too complicated. Best to just let him believe this is my original body. After all, the important thing is that he knows I'm alive again. Yah, that'll work."
If that's the kind of Jesus you want to follow, go right ahead - but that is not the Jesus of the Bible. Again, I dealt with this earlier. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT what God wanted us to understand. That is why the TOMB WAS EMPTY except for the graveclothes. It takes a lot of effort to deny this simple evidence, and for someone to be convinced that Jesus was raised as a "spirit creature" shows a DELIBERATE UNWILLINGNESS to accept God's CLEAR testimony. One just needs to use Occam's Razor and cut though all the JW propaganda to see the truth of Christ's bodily resurrection.
I also dealt with this earlier, so again I refer you to the posts I listed.
As for your assertion that "God wanted Jesus Christ's body to be (remain) dead," how do you harmonize that with Acts 2:24 which says it was GOD RAISED HIM UP because it was IMPOSSIBLE that death should HOLD Him"?
PS - I know I still owe you one. I haven't forgotten.
Last edited by xcav8tor; February 10th 2009 at 08:19 PM.
February 15th 2009, 03:24 PM #47
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
The numerous verses that state God, the Father, raised Jesus may allow for the possibility that it was a joint effort or that multiple persons of the Trinity were involved, but it is quite straightforward in noting that it was God (God the Father, God our heavenly father, God Almighty) that raised Jesus Christ (the Son).
Repeatedly, the scriptures teach that God, the Father, raised Jesus Christ, the Son. It does this almost to the point that it is redundant. It's all throughout the book of Acts of the Apostles and it's also mentioned in most any letter of Apostle Paul's.
However, we come across a verse like John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 and then assert that they are talking about the Son and the Holy Spirit being involved in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
In John 2:19, Jesus Christ is using parable and it's not an explicit teaching. Although, yes, indeed, it can be understood as meaning that Jesus Christ raised his own body up, the underlying truth that has repeatedly, plainly been discussed throughout the New Testament is that God, the Father, raised Jesus Christ up. Why should that be contradicted or, as Trinitarians teach, interpreted as meaning that Jesus Christ was also God so that it could work as a literal statement? Jesus Christ's statement in John 2:19 was a use of parable to describe what the extent of power Jesus Christ was working with. Jesus had also said that the authority and ability he had came from God (John 5:26-27; John 17:7). To act in God's name were things that other men of God would do beforehand. Had not God made Moses "a god" to Pharaoh to send plagues and present signs (Exodus 7:1)? Of course, but God was behind it. God claimed the plagues and signs as his own actions. God was the source, not Moses. In much the same sense, this parable of raising the temple expresses that Jesus Christ was running under God's power. Jesus Christ was given the authority. He expresses it that way because he came from God (John 16:25-30).
Romans 8:11 is not saying that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. The verse is saying that if God's spirit is in you, you will be raised, resurrected. It mentions that God raised Jesus. As a paraphrase, it says "if the spirit of the being who raised Jesus is in you, that being who raised Jesus from death will also give you life through that spirit of his, which would live in you."
11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
To understand this as meaning that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead would contradict the second half of that verse, which says that it had a spirit. The Holy Spirit does not have its own spirit.
John 2:19 and Romans 8:11 are not explicit in teaching that there were others involved with raising Jesus Christ from the dead. What keeps us from interpreting John 8:28 as meaning that the Apostles or that the Jews raised Jesus Christ from death?
The possibility that Jesus raised himself or that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus as well as God, the Father, is not taught. The idea that Jesus raised himself or that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a joint effort seems to be a twisting of words to the fit the Trinitarian God doctrine. The Bible teaches that God, the Father, raised Jesus.
Of course Jesus Christ's statement in John 2:19 was a parable. I highlighted the points that imply it was parable and not a statement to take literally.
The NIV renders it as "ghost."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look 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."
Consider the discussion of the passage. The disciples were surprised to see Jesus and were in disbelief that it was real. There wasn't any conflict over reactions like "is he appearing in his physical body" or "is he appearing as a spirit?"
Jesus was dead and then appeared to the disciples. There is great disbelief and doubt in resurrection actually happening. The reaction was "is this really Jesus, or are we hallucinating and seeing a vision?"
A denial of appearing in the spirit is irrelevant to the discussion in the passage.
If they are resurrected to live in heaven, they exist in a spiritual body.
The physical body is perishable, and cannot exist to rule and live in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50).
The Resurrection is not about going to heaven. The Bible doesn't even teach that all good people or all righteous people who accept Jesus Christ's testimony go into heaven. David was King and prophet, but the scriptures state that he did not go to heaven (Acts 2:34).
When Lazarus was resurrected, he was still on Earth and still as a human with a physical body. Now, despite having been resurrected, Lazarus has died, hasn't he?
When Jesus was resurrected, he was going back to God, the Father. To go back into heaven he had to exist in the spirit, and the Bible does say that Jesus would then exist in a spiritual, heavenly body (1 Corinthians 15:45).
There are different kinds of bodies (1 Corinthians 15:38-40). The heavenly hope in the resurrection is with those born of natural body being raised in a spiritual body sufficient for ruling in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). Nevertheless, to live eternally means to be like those of heaven, regardless of whether the individual lives in heaven itself or not (1 Corinthians 15:48-49).
Again, Jesus Christ was raised in a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:45). He was destined to exist in heaven, not as a human being that would live on Earth forever.
3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
If it were simply the resurrected body of Jesus, Jesus wouldn't have had to give "many convincing proofs that he was alive."
However, Mark 16:12 states that the resurrected Jesus "appeared in a different form:"
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.
How is this possible if Jesus was existing in a physical body? The closest thing would be the Transfiguration, but that was more of an illumination of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't incarnate or transform himself into appearing as a different being.
In Old Testament accounts, angels would appear as one thing or another, as you have mentioned. Sometimes, they are indeed perceived to be something they are not. Still, many times, they are to be seen in one way or another intentionally. God sends them out and has them appear as ordinary men or as something else. If they're supposed to be understood as being angels, they wouldn't have appeared in a different form.
Jesus would return back to heaven and work signs and miracles on Earth from there (Mark 16:19-20). Angels and other heavenly creatures do that sort of thing. Despite the fact that angels would intentionally appear as human beings to communicate to them, they don't exist as human beings or have physical bodies.
To be resurrected in a spiritual body and stand next to one's own physical body is not scripturally logical.
Such ideas, like the physical body and the soul literally just existing separately, or the physical body being capable of existing without the spirit, or the idea of the soul itself existing outside of a body (spiritual or physical) has a stronger basis in Greek mythology or philosophy than what's taught in the scriptures.
For one, if the soul could exist separately from the body, how come Genesis says that man "became a living soul?"
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
There's more to it than this, like whether the soul is immortal and how the soul exists, as taught in the scriptures. There's more on this in the "Is the Soul Immortal" thread I made, if you'd like to discuss it there.
2 Corinthians 5:6-8 reflects this idea of being at home on Earth or with Jesus in heaven.
Note that, if taken to mean "at home" in the physical body or with Jesus as a soul (or "in the spirit"), wouldn't that imply that Jesus Christ is existing in heaven in a spiritual body anyway?
1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 teaches that those who are still alive come time of the Resurrection will enter heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:17). The martyrs are resurrected first (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
Where in the scriptures does it teaches that those who believe in Jesus Christ will enter heaven? Jesus didn't teach it. Jesus simply taught how to have eternal life (Matthew 19:16-19) and enter the kingdom of heaven. The Old Testament doesn't teach that, as the default, the righteous enter heaven.
When the righteous (or wicked) die, they cease to exist/live until resurrected. For one, when King David died, he did not go to heaven (Acts 2:34). He did not "reside in heaven until he was reunited with his physical body."
Also, the idea of God literally residing on Earth is scripturally illogical. God is not a creation, nor does he or can he reside and exist on Earth:
1 Kings 8:27
27 "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
Revelations 21:1-5 does not mean that God himself will dwell and live on the Earth. Rather, it would more like, actually, the spurious translation error implying "God was manifest in the flesh" from the King James Version (1 Timothy 3:16). As in, it would be impersonal "theophany."
The 12,000 and the 144,000 entirety may be allegorical, or simply reflecting "spiritual Israel" and the "spiritual Jews" (i.e. the common theme and viewpoint of Christianity on God's nation) based off of the real Israelite tribes that would exist.
After all, the Bible's teachings on God's favor being in Israel and the Jews doesn't simply mean that only the Jews inherit eternal life.
You're saying that the 12 tribes being referred to are the Jews. There never was a "tribe of Joseph." The meaning of "tribe of Joseph" as an actual tribe is redundant in this list, which brings up the "tribe of Manasseh." Also, the tribes of Ephraim and Dan are not included in the list.
Furthermore, the 144,000 more likely than not are literal, since after this sight John looked at the great multitude and it "was a great multitude that no one could count" (Revelation 7:9). He couldn't count how many were in the great multitude, but he apparently was able to with the previous sight of the 12 tribes of (spiritual) Israel that make up the 144,000. It's a possibility that there is more, but from this, we know that there is a literal listing that calls upon allegorical titles. Consider Romans 2:28-29. They are "Jews" on the inside.
Of course, God was not in any form created. Why delve into the idea of God existing as a man or a creation of any sort? As you may know with the emphasis of Numbers 23:19, for one, God is not a man.
Jesus Christ being "the image of God" or "the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form" characterize Jesus Christ as God's representative.
God existing as a physical entity? You mean to say that God exists in a physical body?
March 3rd 2009, 02:14 AM #48
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
The meaning of the metaphor is clearly spelled out by the inspired apostle in John 2:21 NASB (see OP) and there is no doubt whatsoever that Jesus said raising the temple of His physical body was something HE HIMSELF was going to perform. There is no other way to take the words, "I WILL." While the Father would indeed be primarily involved, the REASON Christ revealed HIS OWN contribution here is in DIRECT ANSWER answer to the Jews' challenge asking for A SIGN which would PROVE HIS AUTHORITY to cleanse the temple. Since raising Himself from the dead was a task ONLY GOD COULD PERFORM, Christ's statement is a clear claim of Deity and AS JEHOVAH GOD (since there is ONLY ONE GOD), HE HAS THE RIGHT TO CLEAR HIS OWN TEMPLE.
Keep in mind that it was not that long ago that the disciples had seen Jesus raise Lazarus physically from the dead. With this recent event in mind, the natural question when Christ stood before them was whether it was His spirit or His resurrected body which stood before them - and Jesus answered this question DECISIVELY by letting them handle Him and eating food in their presence.
The Watchtower has invented a false and unbiblical distinction, that if you are earthbound you get a physical body; if heavenbound you get a body made of spirit. The truth is that all the saved get immortal resurrection bodies patterned after Christ's own (Phil. 3:20-21 NASB), which is BOTH PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL - it is NOT a BODY OF SPIRIT.
All this verse is saying is that OUR PRESENT MORTAL BODIES must undergo a change BEFORE THEY ARE FIT to enter God's eternal kingdom. Read the rest of the phrase - "nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Once our PHYSICAL mortal bodies ARE TRANSFORMED into PHYSICAL IMMORTAL bodies, then they CAN INHERIT the kingdom.
Ask yourself a few questions:
WHAT did Thomas SPECIFICALLY ask to see?
WHY did Thomas ask to see this? (WHAT had he heard from the others?)
WHAT would seeing nail prints MEAN to Thomas in light of his request? (a Physical resurrection or a Spirit resurrection?)
WHAT did Jesus ACTUALLY SHOW to Thomas (original prints from Roman nails or imitations?)
If what Thomas was shown WAS NOT the original prints, and only shown to get him to believe, WOULDN'T CHRIST BE MORALLY OBLIGATED to CLARIFY that the wounds were ONLY FOR DEMO PURPOSES because the body Thomas was being shown WAS NOT the one that hung on the cross?
Wouldn't it be a DECEPTION for Jesus NOT TO TELL THOMAS that He WAS NOT giving him WHAT HE HAD ASKED FOR? (Wouldn't this leave Thomas with the WRONG idea?)
If answering these questions do not lead you to see for yourself that the Watchtower theory makes Jesus a fraud, there is nothing else I can think of to help you see the truth of the matter.
OTOH, ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE for a literal and PHYSICAL RESURRECTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED (empty tomb / seen and felt / nail prints offered / ate food, etc).
What is declared in scripture is NOT ILLOGICAL, even if we can't understand it.
Since God is an omnipresent being, the earth cannot CONTAIN HIM. THAT is true, and that is what Solomon was talking about. That DOES NOT MEAN that God's localized presence cannot appear on earth. Think of His appearance on Mount Sinai, or above the Ark of the Covenant during Israel's wandering in the desert. There is no reason an OMNIPRESENT GOD cannot manifest His presence LOCALLY. Revelation tells us such will be the case in eternity.
March 3rd 2009, 09:34 AM #49
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
3 LITERAL DAYS
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
This is the common Christian position, which I accept too. But I also see this one...
1 DAY = 1000 YEARS, 3000 YEARS TO JUDGMENT
2 Peter 3:8, 13 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day...Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2000 YEARS TO JESUS RETURNS
Hosea 6:2 After two days will he revive us:...
Revelation 20:5 ...This is the first resurrection.
3000 YEARS TO LIVE IN GOD'S SIGHT
Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished...
Hosea 6:2 ...in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
3000 YEARS UNTIL JESUS IS THE FINAL TEMPLE
Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
March 3rd 2009, 09:48 AM #50
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
Last edited by xcav8tor; March 3rd 2009 at 09:55 AM.
March 3rd 2009, 10:56 AM #51
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
While there may be a figurative sense in which the 3 days can be equated to 3,000 years (though I disagree with what you have presented), the context of Jesus' words in this case do not allow for this.
Historically the Jews destroyed the "temple" of Christ's body by having Him crucified on "Good Friday." Historically, on the third day - "Easter Sunday" - Jesus was raised from the dead. This meaning of the three days was understood by the Jews at the time (Mat. 27:62-65). All these facts considered, Jesus was not speaking figuratively except for His use of the word "temple" as a metaphor for His physical body which He said He would literally raise from the dead Himself ("I will").
March 3rd 2009, 11:26 AM #52
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
But how come his words don't also allow for this if he is also the Temple of New Jerusalem, being the Lamb here?
Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.
They would both be him raised after destruction by Jews, once after 3 days, once after 3000 years.1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
March 3rd 2009, 08:46 PM #53
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
Likewise with your post, I'll give my two cents on what I know. Reply to whatever you'd like and correct me where I'm wrong.
I looked into the posts you mentioned again.
3 days passed by after the crucifixion and Jesus says that he still hasn't entered into heaven yet (John 20:17).
Placement of the comma in Luke 23:43 seems to imply that the thief will be with Jesus in paradise on that same day. The Greek manuscripts didn't have a comma in that verse. Jesus was saying "truly I say to you this day, you will be with me in paradise."
Also, paradise does not imply heaven itself. The Earth would exist as a paradise at first, and God's intention for the Earth is to continue to exist for a very long time in the way that he meant for it to be.
They aren't taken back to be used as they were originally meant to be. That contradicts the meaning of atonement and sacrifice. An animal is sacrificed to God; it isn't given life again.
The atonement involving Jesus Christ was to offer God something that could atone for Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience, detachment from God. What was offered up to God? Was it the spiritual body Son of God? No, the Word of God had to become a man, Jesus Christ.
When the Word existed as Jesus Christ, he was a man. A man is an animal; a living, physical being that was not unlike what would usually be sacrificed for atonement (with the exception of the quality of the sacrifice itself, of course). Jesus Christ's physical body was sacrificed to God as the atonement. Jesus Christ lost his chance to live on Earth forever as a man. That body was not taken back and used again.
If Jesus Christ's physical body was not what was sacrificed, what was? Was something symbolic or intangible sacrificed? Was the crucifixion just for show?
That body was sacrificed to God. Why would it be taken back and given life again? That defeats the point of the atonement. It contradicts the very idea of "sacrifice."
Furthermore, Jesus Christ was not destined to live the rest of his life as a man. What is the Trinitarian idea over this? The Word was God, created mankind (as a "co-creator"), and then became a man, Jesus Christ. When he was crucified in atonement, he was raised up in that physical body as a man. Now God exists as a man in heaven? Jesus Christ, who is understood to be God, exists as his own creation?
The Word of God was an angel, that came to Earth to exist as simply a man void of all power he used to have (his power to work miracles and signs as a man would be given and come from God). Jesus Christ would be sacrificed, losing his physical body and the ability to live on Earth as a man. For 3 days, he was dead and ceased to exist. (He was in hades, or "hell," which, in that context, was simply the grave.) The body was taken up artificially by God in much the same sense as sacrifices are burned and become ash. Afterward, Jesus Christ was resurrected in a spiritual body to exist as he always did in heaven, because he came to Earth to end up ruling in heaven over Earth as King. The Word's existence as a Jew on Earth was temporary.
God doesn't die, God doesn't get poured out (Acts 2:17-18; Acts 10:44-45) or breathed upon people (John 20:22), God isn't called a Son, God doesn't learn things from his own creation (Luke 2:52), God doesn't become his own creation, God doesn't claim that anything else is greater than he is (John 10:29; John 14:28), God doesn't claim not to know things (Matthew 24:36).
The actions surrounding Jesus Christ are quite straightforward as evidence that Jesus Christ is not God himself.
Yet, with the Trinitarian Godhead doctrine, these aren't a problem because God can supposedly exist as one of 3 "persons."
Why not follow what the Bible simply teaches? If you're talking about Catholicism, there doesn't seem to be any implication that the religion should change beliefs, but with Protestantism, there's sola scriptura, which means much more than just not abstaining from using the Catholic church's line of apostolic tradition. I often see citations of the teachings of the church fathers by the Protestants. Is that really necessary?
There are a number of variations, some of which "heretical", between the teachings of the early church fathers.
Here, you're telling me that the fact that the statements in the Bible about God, the Father, resurrecting Jesus Christ does not rule out the possibility that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were also involved.
I would agree with you on that, but then I'd have to make an exception of accepting vague teachings that most any other denomination or religion does, seeing the possibility of humans existing as God, as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints teaches, or that Jesus didn't actually die, as Islam teaches, or that Jesus didn't become the Son of God until the baptism, as the modern day Narazenes teach, or that the purgatory exists, as the Catholic Church teaches.
There is some slight possibility that the language used doesn't rule out the idea that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were involved in resurrecting Jesus Christ. The thing is, it's not taught and repeatedly contradicted in the scriptures. I'd prefer to rest my beliefs on what's taught, as recorded in the scriptures; not accept traditional beliefs and assumptions and find where I can fit them into the Bible.
Let me suggest that you hold God's commands and statements to the highest authority, then put Jesus Christ's teachings as next in line, putting them in the context of what God says. Beyond that, understand the other dialogue of the scriptures in the context of what God says and then what Jesus Christ teaches. You can't go wrong that way in reading the Bible.
Of course God intended that Jesus Christ be resurrected to live forever, but why would Jesus live during the 3 days that he was dead? Was the crucifixion supposed to be a symbolic act?
You don't have to reply back to that. Post whenever you'd like.
March 4th 2009, 10:10 AM #54
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
The belief that Christ raised HIMSELF from the dead is FALSE! And the belief that a triune God raised Jesus from the dead is also FALSE.
Apostle Paul says, "...God raised HIM (the Lord Jesus) from the dead" (Rom. 10:9).
If apostle Paul agrees that Christ raised HIMSELF from the dead, wouldn't he had written, "believe in your heart that God (the Son) raised him(self) from the dead...?"
And if apostle Paul agrees that the Trinity raised Jesus from the dead, wouldn't he had written, "believe in your heart that God (the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) raised Jesus from the dead...?"
I don't believe that apostle Paul agrees with what Trinitarians. And neither do I.
Here's an ALTERNATIVE interpretation to the "ONLY interpretation" of John 2:129 presented in the OP:
1. Jesus was referring to his "body, the church" (Eph. 1:22) which apostle Paul says is the "temple of God." Apostle Paul told the Church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) which was composed of DISCIPLES of Christ that they are the "temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:16).
Contrary to popular belief, Christ started his church with his first recruited apostles, Simon and Andrew (Matt. 4:18) who became the first members of "his body." When Jesus said "I will BUILD my church" he was referring to developing his church or making it big.
2. When Jesus said "destroy this temple" he was referring to the scattering of his "body" or DISCIPLES upon his death as prophesied in Zech. 13:7 (Matt. 26:31). Indeed, "all his disciples forsook him and fled" (Matt. 26:56) when he was arrested.
3. When Jesus said, "and in three days I will raise it up" he was referring to the "building up" or REASSEMBLING of "his body" or church or disciples upon his resurrection. "After Jesus rose again the third day, He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once..." (1 Cor. 15:4-6). From then on, the "body" or "church" grew by leaps and bounds (Acts 2:41,47).
This was the sign that Jesus will cleanse the "temple" of people who sell merchandise. Hence, in John 4:21-22, Jesus said: "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will NEITHER on this mountain, NOR in Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him."
You will note that in the old days, God commanded His people to build for Him temples "on the mountain and in Jerusalem."
In effect, Jesus was saying that true worshipers need not worship the Father in "temples made by men" but in the "temple of God" in these last days, which is the "church" or "body of Christ" (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16).
March 4th 2009, 05:18 PM #55
Re: How was the "temple" raised?
Of course, even then, reading a doctrinally slanted version like the NWT will make it hard for someone who wants to know the truth to find it. For example, I'd say at least 99% of unbiased people new to the Bible would read John 1:1-3, 14 and conclude that Jesus is God, and would only doubt what they have read if told by someone they feel has more knowledge that "that is not what it means," or unless they were reading the NWT.
May I ask what version(s) of the Bible you read/trust?
And why are you again asserting that John 2:19 is a "parable." I just finished explaining the difference between a parable and a metaphor in POST #48 OF THIS THREAD (which you are responding to) and without any counter argument you repeat your assertion as if nothing had been said. You must have read it, yet you gloss right over it as if it didn't register. Why is that?
If you want to prove that John 2:19 somehow qualifies as "a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle" then let's see your proof. Otherwise, admit that it is not a parable and find some other defense.
I explained that Paradise and Heaven were not the same place at the end of POST # 20 / Is the Soul Immortal? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...6&postcount=20 Having read that post, you still repeat the exact same objection as if I had not answered it, again glossing over it as if it didn't even register. Why is that?
In POST # 16 / Is the Soul Immortal http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...5&postcount=16 I said:
What is grammatically possible is not always contextually defensible. In this instance, the comma can only go in it's traditional place. "TRULY I SAY UNTO YOU" is a formula Jesus used 73 times in the Gospels. The words are equivalent to the OT "Thus saith the Lord." Are we to believe that all of a sudden Jesus was going to MAKE AN ARBITRARY EXCEPTION and throw in the word "today" into the mix - KNOWING "TODAY" WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY REDUNDANT (when else could He say it?). NO - Jesus was doing more than reassure the dying thief of salvation, but letting him know that he would be with Jesus THAT VERY DAY in paradise (Abraham's bosom).
You might like to check out the JW's own concordance on this. They themselves put the comma after "Truly I say unto you" 72 times. THE ONLY TIME THEY MOVE THE COMMA to include another word is in this passage. WHY? Because a consistent translation on their part would make it obvious that Jesus was saying something that DISAGREED with their doctrine.
Are you going to try to tell me (WITHOUT BLUSHING) that YOU PERSONALLY - AS A RESULT OF CONSIDERING THE TEXT ITSELF IN AN UNBIASED MANNER - believe that Jesus used the word "today" merely to let the thief know that Jesus was talking to Him on that particular day - breaking a precedent of 72 other uses of His famous "Truly I say unto you, ..."?
I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS, and if you admit that Jesus told the thief he would be with Jesus THAT VERY DAY in Paradise, how do you explain this in terms of your current beliefs?
Thinking of the ransom in terms of money might make it easier to see my point. If the person paying the ransom gave God $100 Billion in Gold to PAY OFF IN FULL the debt that they owed, it is not within God's prerogative to do whatever He wants with the gold? Since the transaction has been made, and the debt thereby canceled, ISN'T GOD FREE TO DO WHATEVER HE WANTS with that gold - EVEN GIVING IT BACK TO THE PERSON WHO GAVE IT TO HIM?
WHERE in the Bible does it say that God CANNOT restore Life to Christ's PHYSICAL BODY, not only raising it from the dead, but GLORIFYING IT and GRANTING IT IMMORTALITY - especially when we are told that THIS WAS GOD'S PLAN ALL ALONG.
I will see how you respond to what I have written before I continue.
I apologize for the abrupt tone of my words, but being asked the same questions again right after they had been answered in recent posts, and with absolutely no indication that my responses have left the faintest impression is very frustrating. It is a waste of my time to continue to have my replies be completely glossed over and then to be asked the same questions over again by the same person. You are free to disagree or provide a counter argument (and you often have, along with new questions), but surely you can see how your lack of acknowledgment (as documented above) confuse me no end.
Last edited by xcav8tor; March 4th 2009 at 05:45 PM.
By The Laughing Man in forum Civics 101Replies: 19Last Post: December 5th 2011, 02:45 AM
By The Laughing Man in forum Apologetics 301Replies: 59Last Post: July 5th 2011, 03:42 AM
By Minnesota in forum Civics 101Replies: 39Last Post: May 21st 2007, 10:36 AM
By Magdalenbrother in forum Comparative Religions 101Replies: 17Last Post: February 19th 2005, 11:36 PM