How was the "temple" raised?

[xcav8tor]

Hi evantisin,

First of all, the Bible states that God raised Jesus:

Hold it right there. I NEVER DENIED that GOD RAISED JESUS. As I said earlier in this thread, GOD (Father, Son and Spirit) raised Jesus' body from the dead. Neither have I specifically denied that the person of God the FATHER raised Jesus' body from the dead - so all your quotations to "prove" that God or the Father raised Jesus from the dead are redundant. I am fully aware of them and believe them to be absolutely true.

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.

To say that anyone but God raised Jesus Christ would be false testimony:

If by "anyone" you mean "no other being but God" I would agree with you (because since God is a Trinity, both Jesus and His Father are the same entity). Same if you mean "no other PERSON except God" because the person Jesus is also God. HOWEVER if you mean "anyone but the person of God the Father," I would have to say you are mistaken. I quoted the words of Jesus Himself (I WILL RAISE IT UP... I HAVE AUTHORITY TO TAKE IT UP), and Jesus NEVER bore false testimony (John 14:6 - I AM... THE TRUTH).

When Jesus said that he would the temple in three days, did that mean he himself would raise himself from the dead, or was he speaking figuratively of that?

I've already answered this. Go back and read the opening post.

Second of all, Jesus Christ was raised in a spiritual body, not in the physical body he died. Scripture states that those who enter heaven cannot live there with a physical body... flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God:

Also answered earlier. Go back and read posts 18, 20, 25, and 30.

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.

Consider that Elijah was taken up into heaven and was expected to return. Did Elijah return in the flesh?

Not yet. But he will. There is a dual fulfillment here. In Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel, there was an initial fulfillment in the child born in Ahab's day and the ultimate fulfillment in the birth of Christ. Likewise here. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah to be the forerunner of Christ's First Coming. Elijah himself will come physically during the Tribulation period to be the forerunner of Christ's Second Coming.

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)

Jesus Christ was not raised in his physical body.

THAT STATEMENT IS HERESY. The moment you say this you are denying Christ's RESURRECTION because resurrection ONLY APPLIES to the BODY. There is NO exception. Christ's BODILY RESURRECTION is the very FOUNDATION of the gospel message.

Despite the fact that Thomas felt the nail marks and spear mark in Jesus Christ's body when he appeared to him, this was a manifestation Jesus Christ himself appeared as in order to convince Thomas.

So the ends justifies the means? It's OK with you for Jesus to provide FRAUDULENT evidence as long as it convinces Thomas? So you believe this is what Jesus was thinking:

"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.

How do we know it was a physical body and not a spiritual body? Jesus was appearing in different forms.

Again, dealt with earlier in post # 30.

A spiritual body would be instrumental for that, in contrast to a physical one. Why wouldn't they just see him in the physical body and believe?

If God wanted to demonstrate to the disciples that Jesus was RECREATED as a "spirit creature" (the term RESURRECTION would not apply), the BEST WAY TO ESTABLISH THIS BEYOND ANY DOUBT would be for the SPIRIT JESUS to be seen standing beside the DEAD BODY. It would show He was ALIVE again, yet without any doubt about the body remaining in death's grip. But this decisive evidence WAS NOT GIVEN. If the Watchtower's theory was correct, WHY WOULD GOD WITHHOLD IT?

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.

If you know of any teaching in the Bible that says how to enter heaven itself, please let me know.

The souls of the saved (since Christ's ascension) only go to heaven until they are reunited with their bodies at the resurrection (Phil. 1:21-23 / 2 Cor. 5:6-8 / 1 Thes. 4:14-17). After the Millenium, everyone - God included - will reside on the new earth in the new universe (Rev. 21:1-5).

All I've seen the scriptures mention is being under the Kingdom of Heaven, which is for most anyone at all, and on Jesus saying he will take his disciples with him, which seem to be chosen ones [possibly of the 144,000 anointed or outside of that].

The "144,000" ARE JEWS - Rev. 7:4. 12,000 from each of the 12 JEWISH TRIBES. Doesn't it make you the LEAST SUSPICIOUS that the JWs take the NUMBER LITERALLY and yet the TRIBES ALLEGORICALLY even though the numbers and tribes are literally UNITED in the Greek text? Judah 12,000, Reuben 12,000, Gad 12,000, and so on. Either the NUMBER & TRIBES are BOTH LITERAL or BOTH ALLEGORICAL, but you CANNOT MIX AND MATCH - and I shouldn't have to point this out.

After all, angels and God, residing in heaven, don't have physical bodies, do they?

We know that at least Jesus does. Paul says 30 years AFTER Christ's ascension that "in Him all the fullness of Deity DWELLS (present tense) IN BODILY FORM" (Col. 2:9 NASB). In addition, Acts 1:1-2 and Acts 3:20-21 show that Jesus has been in heaven since His ascension.

Last of all, Jesus Christ's physical body SIMPLY COULD NOT HAVE been resurrected in order to continue living by his atoned, sacrificed physical body... If that body was brought back to life, that would defeat the purpose of the atonement and take back the offering given in the ransom. God wanted Jesus Christ's body to be dead.

This is really what the problem is with the JWs. Their leadership "reason things out," come to the wrong conclusion, then pawn it off as "guidance received from heaven." Once JWs have been "told what the truth of the matter is" by their "faithful steward" they are no longer free to accept what the Bible itself teaches - like 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"?

Regards,
xcav8tor

PS - I know I still owe you one. I haven't forgotten.

[evantisin]

Hi xcav8tor,

Hold it right there. I NEVER DENIED that GOD RAISED JESUS. As I said earlier in this thread, GOD (Father, Son and Spirit) raised Jesus' body from the dead. Neither have I specifically denied that the person of God the FATHER raised Jesus' body from the dead - so all your quotations to "prove" that God or the Father raised Jesus from the dead are redundant. I am fully aware of them and believe them to be absolutely true.

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.

If by "anyone" you mean "no other being but God" I would agree with you (because since God is a Trinity, both Jesus and His Father are the same entity). Same if you mean "no other PERSON except God" because the person Jesus is also God. HOWEVER if you mean "anyone but the person of God the Father," I would have to say you are mistaken. I quoted the words of Jesus Himself (I WILL RAISE IT UP... I HAVE AUTHORITY TO TAKE IT UP), and Jesus NEVER bore false testimony (John 14:6 - I AM... THE TRUTH).

I do understand that you are not denying God's involvement and also how you are expressing two other verses as meaning that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit got involved in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

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."

Romans 8:11

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.

I've already answered this. Go back and read the opening post.

I should have mentioned what I meant with that. It was rhetorical question.

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.

Also answered earlier. Go back and read posts 18, 20, 25, and 30.

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.

The disciples thought that Jesus Christ appeared as an apparition or as a ghost. Jesus was dead, so they thought they were seeing a vision.

The NIV renders it as "ghost."

Luke 24:37-39

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.

THAT STATEMENT IS HERESY. The moment you say this you are denying Christ's RESURRECTION because resurrection ONLY APPLIES to the BODY. There is NO exception. Christ's BODILY RESURRECTION is the very FOUNDATION of the gospel message.

If one is resurrected to live on earth, their physical body is resurrected and exist in that physical body.

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.

So the ends justifies the means? It's OK with you for Jesus to provide FRAUDULENT evidence as long as it convinces Thomas? So you believe this is what Jesus was thinking:

"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.

Jesus wasn't trying to create fraudulent evidence. The scriptures say that Jesus had to give convincing proofs to people that he was indeed alive:

Acts 1:3

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."

Again, dealt with earlier in post # 30.

I see your examples and they explain how they wouldn't have recognized Jesus.

However, Mark 16:12 states that the resurrected Jesus "appeared in a different form:"

Mark 16:12

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.

If God wanted to demonstrate to the disciples that Jesus was RECREATED as a "spirit creature" (the term RESURRECTION would not apply), the BEST WAY TO ESTABLISH THIS BEYOND ANY DOUBT would be for the SPIRIT JESUS to be seen standing beside the DEAD BODY. It would show He was ALIVE again, yet without any doubt about the body remaining in death's grip. But this decisive evidence WAS NOT GIVEN. If the Watchtower's theory was correct, WHY WOULD GOD WITHHOLD IT?

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.

The point of Jesus Christ appearing after being resurrected wasn't to show that he was resurrected in a spiritual body, but to show that he was resurrected and alive.

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?"

Genesis 2:7

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.

The souls of the saved (since Christ's ascension) only go to heaven until they are reunited with their bodies at the resurrection (Phil. 1:21-23 / 2 Cor. 5:6-8 / 1 Thes. 4:14-17). After the Millenium, everyone - God included - will reside on the new earth in the new universe (Rev. 21:1-5).

In Philippians 1:20-26, Paul is saying that he doesn't know whether or not he wants to be in heaven (Philippians 1:22), but says he'd prefer to be living on Earth so that he can help bring people closer to Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:24-26).

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 "144,000" ARE JEWS - Rev. 7:4. 12,000 from each of the 12 JEWISH TRIBES. Doesn't it make you the LEAST SUSPICIOUS that the JWs take the NUMBER LITERALLY and yet the TRIBES ALLEGORICALLY even though the numbers and tribes are literally UNITED in the Greek text? Judah 12,000, Reuben 12,000, Gad 12,000, and so on. Either the NUMBER & TRIBES are BOTH LITERAL or BOTH ALLEGORICAL, but you CANNOT MIX AND MATCH - and I shouldn't have to point this out.

Revelation 20:6 says that the 144,000 anointed will be in heaven to rule and judge and in 1 Corinthians 6:1-2 it says that the anointed on Earth will indeed judge in heaven. Why would God appoint ancient Jewish tribes to rule over the Christians? 12,000 from each of the 12 Jewish tribes to rule over Christians and Jews alike?

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.

We know that at least Jesus does. Paul says 30 years AFTER Christ's ascension that "in Him all the fullness of Deity DWELLS (present tense) IN BODILY FORM" (Col. 2:9 NASB). In addition, Acts 1:1-2 and Acts 3:20-21 show that Jesus has been in heaven since His ascension.

To understand Colossians 2:9 as meaning God has a physical body contradicts scripture. God does not exist as his own creation. God does not exist in the form of his creation.

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?

Regards,
evantisin

[xcav8tor]

Hi evantisin,

I do understand that you are not denying God's involvement and also how you are expressing two other verses as meaning that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit got involved in the resurrection of Jesus Christ... 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...

Good.

Repeatedly, the scriptures teach that God, the Father, raised Jesus Christ, the Son... 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?

The Holy Spirit's stated participation is beside the point for this thread, and as the scant evidence can be interpreted other ways I will not press it. I'm sure you would agree that allowing for the reality of God as a Trinity, it would make sense that the Holy Spirit would be involved - even if such is not spelled out in Scripture. I will continue, however, to argue for Christ's ACTIVE participation.

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.

John 2 IS NOT a parable. A PARABLE is "a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle." * What Jesus did here was APPLY A METAPHOR - "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them" * - referring to His physical body as a temple which the Jews would destroy and that He Himself would rebuild in three days. [ * definitions from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary ]

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.

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?

Well, for one, in John 8:29 Jesus is addressing the unbelieving Jews, and He is referring to their LIFTING HIM UP IN CRUCIFIXION, not raising Him from the dead. Besides, while common sense tells us human beings do not commonly have the authority to raise the dead, Christ's possession of a Divine Nature changes the situation considerably.

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.

"In three days I WILL raise it up." I am just taking Christ's own words at face value. There is NO "TWISTING." In fact, His words have to be TWISTED in order to mean anything else.

The NIV renders it as "ghost." Luke 24:37-39 NIV

Ghost - spirit... tomAto - TOMaTO. There is no significant difference in this context.

Consider the discussion of the passage... 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.

The choice was not between GHOST and HALLUCINATION, but between GHOST and RESURRECTED BODY. This is proven by Christ's own words. "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." (vs 39)

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.

If one is resurrected to live on earth, their physical body is resurrected and exist in that physical body... If they are resurrected to live in heaven, they exist in a spiritual body.

The destination - heaven or earth - has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH RESURRECTION. Resurrection ONLY PERTAINS TO THE BODY - PERIOD.

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.

The physical body is perishable, and cannot exist to rule and live in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:50).

I have shown the flaws in this argument several times already. Did you not bother to read what I said earlier or did you just choose to ignore it?

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.

The Resurrection is not about going to heaven.

I never said it was. It is THE WATCHTOWER who are putting those words in our mouths. The Bible clearly says the final destination of the saved is to be WITH GOD ON EARTH FOR ETERNITY. (Rev. 21:1-3 NASB / Rev. 22:1-5 NASB) Note the New Jerusalem is ON EARTH. "Heaven," in the sense of the eternal home of the saved, will BE ON EARTH.

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?

That's because Lazarus was only RESTORED to life. He was NOT resurrected to eternal life. He couldn't be, because the Bible says Jesus Himself is the FIRSTFRUITS. None could be raised to eternal life until Jesus had paid the price on the cross and until He Himself had conquered death once and for all. All OT and NT resurrections aside from Christ's have been temporary. The FIRST RESURRECTION of the saved as spoken of in 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thes. 4 has not yet taken place.

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.

NO, NO, and... NO. I don't know how else to say it. The underlined part of your statement above is a Watchtower FICTION, not based on the Bible, but on the fallible arguments of fallible men. Instead of accepting the Bible's testimony that people can go to heaven in physical form (Enoch, Elijah, Jesus' ascension, Paul in 2 Cor. 12), they start with the idea that heaven is a spiritual realm, and reason that therefore only spirit beings can be there, so any Biblical evidence to the contrary must "mean" something else.

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 with this "heavenly hope" fiction from the Watchtower. ALL CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS will have the SAME TANGIBLE, GLORIFIED, SPIRIT-POWERED BODIES as JESUS HAS (Phil. 3:21 NASB), whether they are residing in heaven during the Millennium or on Earth for the rest of eternity. LIKE JESUS we will have a SOLID, PHYSICAL, CORPOREAL YET SPIRITUAL BODY.

Again, Jesus Christ was raised in a spiritual body. He was destined to exist in heaven, not as a human being that would live on Earth forever.

NOT ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Ask yourself where the LAMB'S THRONE IS and read Rev. 21:1-3 NASB and Rev. 22:1-5 NASB. Jesus is not all alone in heaven, but ON EARTH with God the Father and the saved.

Jesus wasn't trying to create fraudulent evidence. The scriptures say that Jesus had to give convincing proofs to people that he was indeed alive... If it were simply the resurrected body of Jesus, Jesus wouldn't have had to give "many convincing proofs that he was alive."

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.

I see your examples and they explain how they wouldn't have recognized Jesus.

Thank you.

However, Mark 16:12 states that the resurrected Jesus "appeared in a different form" ...How is this possible if Jesus was existing in a physical body?

The Mark passage is referring to the two on the road to Emmaus - the one's who had their vision adjusted so as not to recognize Jesus' face or to notice the marks on His hands. Of course this would involve "APPEARING" in a "DIFFERENT" form. Visually what they saw was a "different form" as a result of Christ affecting their minds to see only what He wanted them to see. Mark doesn't mean that Jesus appeared in another PHYSICAL FORM (as in a different body) but in another VISUAL FORM (as in He "looked different" to them). In reality, there was no change in His body at all - just their perception of it.

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.

That's because they are BY NATURE incorporeal beings - they are SPIRITS. Jesus is both God and Man, and as the first resurrected Man will always have an immortal, glorified, physical body.

The point of Jesus Christ appearing after being resurrected wasn't to show that he was resurrected in a spiritual body, but to show that he was resurrected and alive.

It was to show that 1) He had overcome death itself - which would not be true if death still held His physical body, 2) that God had accepted His sacrifice on our behalf - and Him coming back to life physically would demonstrate this, and 3) that He Himself is also God, having raised Himself from the dead just as He promised.

To be resurrected in a spiritual body and stand next to one's own physical body is not scripturally logical.

On the contrary, it is the BEST POSSIBLE proof that could be offered for the Watchtower doctrine. They claim that Jesus was raised as a spirit creature and that the body remained dead. The "spirit" Jesus standing alive beside the preserved corpse of the old Jesus who died on the cross would ABSOLUTELY PROVE BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Jesus had survived death as a "recreated spirit creature" and yet show beyond question that this was not to be mistaken for a literal, physical resurrection of the body. NOTHING COULD BE MORE "LOGICAL" THAN THAT.

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.

I've never suggested the body can exist an extended period of time without the soul/spirit. As for the spirit existing without the body - that is what the Watchtower is saying about Jesus - that He was recreated as a disembodied "spirit creature" with his body on permanent display in heaven or else dissolved into gases (neither of which is indicated in scripture). All I was saying here is that IF THEIR SCENARIO WERE TRUE, then the best way to prove it would be to show Jesus' recreated spirit standing beside His dead physical body - guaranteeing that the alleged "heresy" of Christ's bodily resurrection which all orthodox churches believe would have never become accepted as truth.

OTOH, ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE for a literal and PHYSICAL RESURRECTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED (empty tomb / seen and felt / nail prints offered / ate food, etc).

For one, if the soul could exist separately from the body, how come Genesis says that man "became a living soul?"

The word soul has a range of meaning. It can stand for the immaterial part of man; one of two distinct parts of that immaterial part of man; or the entire person. In Genesis 2 it is using "soul" in the 3rd sense - of the complete individual. Hence Adam "became" a "living soul" or "person" or "individual" or "living being." It is not denying or contradicting the later revelation that within man resides a soul/spirit (1 Thes. 5:23 NASB).

In Philippians 1:20-26, Paul is saying that he doesn't know whether or not he wants to be in heaven (Philippians 1:22), but says he'd prefer to be living on Earth so that he can help bring people closer to Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:24-26).

You were asking "If you know of any teaching in the Bible that says how to enter heaven itself, please let me know." My point in quoting Philippians was to show that Paul taught that to be away from our body results in going directly to heaven. This same thought is presented in the Corinthian passage but you seem unable to see it due to the Watchtower influence colouring your perspective.

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?

Not at all. Our physical bodies remain on earth because the time for resurrection is yet future to us. Only our souls can go to be with Jesus at this point. Because Jesus has already been resurrected in a glorified body, it is presently with Him in heaven.

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).

It is teaching that ALL THOSE IN CHRIST, from the time of Christ's resurrection until this future day (ie. the Church as the corporate body of Christ) will be resurrected. Those who have died over the centuries would be resurrected in new bodies a split second before those living will receive glorified resurrection bodies without having to experience death. Once the church has been completely transformed, they will go to heaven while the tribulation takes place on earth and then return WITH CHRIST at His Second Coming. At THAT POINT, the tribulation martyrs and OT saints will be raised from the dead to participate in the Millennium. The unsaved dead do not get resurrected until the end of Christ's 1,000 year rule.

Where in the scriptures does it teaches that those who believe in Jesus Christ will enter heaven?

I just covered this. It has also been discussed in detail in other JW threads of late. I cannot keep repeating myself.

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

Again, reason is being set above scripture - a common problem with the Watchtower. They decide up front what is deemed "reasonable," then any scripture that doesn't fit is discarded or bent out of shape to agree with their doctrine.

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.

Revelations 21:1-5 does not mean that God himself will dwell and live on the Earth.

Why can it not mean what it says? Because the Watchtower says so? It is a very clear, straightforward statement. No symbolic language involved. No "interpretation" required. It just needs to be believed.

Revelation 20:6 says that the 144,000 anointed will be in heaven to rule and judge and in 1 Corinthians 6:1-2 it says that the anointed on Earth will indeed judge in heaven. Why would God appoint ancient Jewish tribes to rule over the Christians? 12,000 from each of the 12 Jewish tribes to rule over Christians and Jews alike?

The 144,000 believe in Christ, 12,000 each from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Have you never heard of Messianic Jews? Normally these would become part of the Church, the Body of Christ, but since these are not saved until AFTER the resurrection of the Church at the rapture and DURING the 7 year tribulation period, they remain Jewish believers and retain their Jewish heritage. They are a saved group distinct from the Church, and it appears their job is to preach the gospel message to the world after the church has been taken away. The great multitude of believers from all nations that no one could count (Rev. 7:9 NASB) appear to be those saved by the preaching of the 144,000 Jews.

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.

All I am saying is that BOTH the number AND the tribes must be interpreted TOGETHER. If the NUMBER is literal, then so are the Tribes. If the Tribes are allegorical, so are the numbers. What the Watchtower is saying is that the NUMBER is literal, but the TRIBES are allegorical. That does violence to the text.

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.

Salvation is FOR ALL (Isa. 45:22), but it is OF THE JEWS (John 4:22), and TO THE JEW FIRST (Rom. 1:16).

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.

IIRC there are 3 slightly different listings of the 12 Tribes of Israel, God recognizing a few tribes over others because of their falling out of favour due to their sin (Dan's idolatry for one). Nonetheless, they are all descendants of the original twelve and there is no doubt about their racially Jewish heritage. It seems Dan will restored during the Millennium (Ezek. 48:1).

To understand Colossians 2:9 as meaning God has a physical body contradicts scripture. God does not exist as his own creation. God does not exist in the form of his creation.

There is no contradiction. Col. 2:9 NASB is NOT saying that the Triune God has a physical body. The Bible is clear that God is a SPIRIT. What Paul is telling us in Colossians is that Jesus as the Second Divine Person of the Trinity currently resides in a physical body - that the PERSON of Jesus is BOTH FULLY GOD AND FULLY MAN. The PERSONS of the FATHER and the HOLY GHOST are not in view here and ARE NOT SAID to have physical form. You need to understand the implications of the INCARNATION. I have discussed this here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...16&postcount=9

Jesus Christ being "the image of God" or "the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form" characterize Jesus Christ as God's representative.

The Greek of the text shows that far more than mere representation is intended, but a sharing of DEITY, a sharing of God's DIVINE NATURE or ESSENCE. As Thayer puts it, "theotetos - the STATE OF BEING GOD." Again, I have said this all before. You do not refute my evidence, but merely reassert your argument as if I never presented the facts in the first place.

God existing as a physical entity? You mean to say that God exists in a physical body?

No. Not God the Father. Not God the Holy Spirit. Not even Jesus as God the Son of God in terms of His Divine Nature - BUT YES in terms of Christ as GOD INCARNATE when He took upon Himself a HUMAN NATURE.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[John Goddard]

NOT ACCORDING TO THE BOOK OF REVELATION. Ask yourself where the LAMB'S THRONE IS and read Rev. 21:1-3 NASB and Rev. 22:1-5 NASB. Jesus is not all alone in heaven, but ON EARTH with God the Father and the saved.

This may be better in Eschatology, but it addresses that there is both a literal and metaphorical interpretation possible from John 2:19-21. And it also relates to what you just said here.

The ONLY interpretation that fits all the facts is that Jesus meant His physical body, and therefore predicted His physical resurrection from the dead. The verse CANNOT be twisted to mean anything else.

John 2:19, 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up...But he spake of the temple of his body.

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.

[xcav8tor]

Hi evantisin,

Repeatedly, the scriptures teach that God, the Father, raised Jesus Christ, the Son. It does this almost to the point that it is redundant.

Actually, I did a search on the word "Father." It occurs 326 times in the KJV of the NT. ONLY 3 of these uses relate to the Father raising Jesus from the dead (Rom. 6:4 / Gal. 1:1 / and perhaps 1 Pet. 1:3 could be added). The rest of the time, "God" is used (which could mean the Triune God, depending on context), so the assertion that the Bible repeatedly and specifically says the Father raised the Son all through the NT is misleading.

Regards,
xcav8tor

[xcav8tor]

Hello John,

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").

Regards,
xcav8tor

[John Goddard]

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.

I agree he was talking about his resurrection from 3 days in the grave.

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.

[evantisin]

Hi xcav8tor,

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.

This is really what the problem is with the JWs. Their leadership "reason things out," come to the wrong conclusion, then pawn it off as "guidance received from heaven." Once JWs have been "told what the truth of the matter is" by their "faithful steward" they are no longer free to accept what the Bible itself teaches - like Christ's BODILY RESURRECTION.

I also dealt with this earlier, so again I refer you to the posts I listed.

Simply reading the Bible from beginning to end and basing one's beliefs from it is one of the purest ways to hear and follow the word of God available today.

I looked into the posts you mentioned again.

Yes, Jesus did become sin for us, and He did experience separation from the Father (Mat. 27:46 NIV), but before He gave up His spirit, He proclaimed His victory over sin - "It is finished!" (John 19:30 NIV). Since Christ's sacrifice was completed and accepted, there was no reason Jesus could not take part in raising His body as the Father commanded Him to (John 10:17-18 NIV) and as He Himself predicted He would - "In 3 days I WILL RAISE IT UP." How many more times does Jesus have to say it before you believe Him?

He only sounds like he says it once, John 2:19, and it's a use of parable. Jesus Christ isn't going to raise the Second Temple. He was speaking figuratively about it and expressing the authority he was coming from, like with John 10:25-30.

Let's also not forget the fact that Jesus assured the thief next to Him on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day (Luke 23:43 NIV) - a place that He had earlier described as Abraham's bosom, a place of consciousness and peace (Luke 16:22-26 NIV). While some claim this is merely a parable, the fact that Jesus used personal names (Lazarus and Abraham) indicates otherwise. Since Jesus (as a spirit) would still be conscious after the death of His body, He would be able to actively participate in raising it.

The thief did not go with Jesus to heaven on that day.

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.

You argue that if Jesus had raised Himself from the dead, "he would have reneged on the kin repurchase making his sacrafice invalid." Says who? What scripture even suggests a scenario where someone could raise themselves from the dead thereby invalidating their sacrifice? I've heard this kind of twaddle from JWs in the past (not inferring you are one), but they have yet to produce anything but their "say-so" backed up by the petulant stamping of their feet.

The fact remains that once the sacrifice has been offered and the debt paid in full - which it was - then there is no further legal obligation left.

There was a price to be paid. It WAS paid - in full (Col. 2:13-15 NIV). Jesus tasted death for each and every one of us. It was because He was both God and Man that His life had the value to atone for the sins of all mankind throughout all of time. The horror of Christ's separation from the Father (which is what death is) is something we will never be able to comprehend. As a completely Holy and Infinite Being, suddenly drenched with the totality of the filth of the world's sin, while at the same time being separated from the eternal fellowship He had with the Father - this was an infinite level of gut-wrenching sorrow and anguish which we will never be able to appreciate! Nonetheless, it was not intended to be of eternal duration or Jesus would never be allowed to be resurrected at all - no matter Who was directly responsible.

You say this freedom had to be granted. It was. The Father commanded Jesus to take up His life again. Having been granted this freedom and commanded to raise Himself, Jesus actively participated in His own resurrection. I don't see any problem here.

Atonements for sin are not taken back from God. In the Old Testament, people would sacrifice animals without defect or offer crops of good quality. These would be sacrificed to God. They would be given to God.

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.

Yes, God resurrected Jonah. So what? God is a Trinity - right? All 3 persons co-created the universe. All 3 persons are involved in our salvation. All 3 persons inspired the Bible. Are you trying to say that only 2 were involved in Christ's resurrection? Yes, the Bible says the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Gal. 1:1 NIV). The Bible also says the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. 8:11 NIV). John chapters 2 and 10 tell us that Jesus ALSO raised His body from the dead. The fact that God the Father participated does not rule out the participation of the other 2 members of the Trinity. Note that none of the verses say that the Father acted ALONE, just that He acted. God - the Triune God - raised Jesus from the dead.

The scriptures usually don't mention that 3 persons were involved in any of these events. They usually give credit to God, exalting God, the Father, alone. The Holy Spirit itself wasn't a co-creator. The scriptures don't teach that the Holy Spirit helped in raising Jesus Christ. There aren't 3 identities or "persons" of God being co-creators or co-anything that has to do with God's sovereign position.

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.

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"?

I did not mean forever. I meant that when Jesus dies, he does not continue to exist and fake death, or intend that his crucifixion be an act or just for show.

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?

PS - I know I still owe you one. I haven't forgotten.

Are you talking about the last few posts we had in the "Is Jesus God or a God" thread?

You don't have to reply back to that. Post whenever you'd like.

Regards,
evantisin

[IncRus]

The ONLY interpretation that fits all the facts is that Jesus meant His physical body, and therefore predicted His physical resurrection from the dead. The verse CANNOT be twisted to mean anything else.

This "ONLY interpretation" is NOT the "only" interpretation of John 2:19. In fact, this "ONLY interpretation" does NOT sit well with TRUTHS that are recorded in the Bible.

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).

[xcav8tor]

Hello evantisin,

Simply reading the Bible from beginning to end and basing one's beliefs from it is one of the purest ways to hear and follow the word of God available today.

I agree completely, but to my knowledge, JWs (as a rule) do not do this. They read the lessons provided by the Watchtower and go to meetings where "the faithful slave" supposedly tells them what the text "means" and how to deal with objections by Christians (I've been to them). In fact, thinking for themselves is discouraged, and any disagreement with official doctrine is grounds for disfellowshipping. In fact, there is so much time alloted to reading lessons, attending meetings and going door to door to meet their quotas ("or else" ), there is precious little time left for personal Bible study.

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?

He only sounds like he says it once, John 2:19, and it's a use of parable. Jesus Christ isn't going to raise the Second Temple. He was speaking figuratively about it and expressing the authority he was coming from, like with John 10:25-30.

The "I WILL raise it up" in John is clear enough - that's once. The statement that He will "TAKE UP" the life He will lay down is the second - "I lay down my life, that I might TAKE IT again" (John 10:17-18). Because it is something done in response to the Father's COMMAND, it must be something Jesus is ACTIVELY DOING Himself. Therefore this is the second time Jesus is predicting to RAISE HIMSELF from the dead.

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.

The thief did not go with Jesus to heaven on that day. 3 days passed by after the crucifixion and Jesus says that he still hasn't entered into heaven yet (John 20:17).

I NEVER SAID THAT EITHER THE THIEF OR JESUS WENT TO HEAVEN ON THE DAY THEY DIED.

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?

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."

For the third time in just your first few paragraphs, you have repeated arguments that I have responded to as if you had never read my replies. It's like it goes in one ear and out the other without pausing to leave any trace whatsoever. 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?

Atonements for sin are not taken back from God... 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.

Again, the standard JW "just so" story. PROVE IT. Let's see CHAPTER AND VERSE. Where does it say that God - SHOULD HE CHOSE TO - CANNOT MAKE AN EXCEPTION and GIVE BACK the life that was offered to Him. Once the sacrifice has been made and accepted, WHAT PROHIBITS THE ALMIGHTY from RESTORING LIFE? After all, Jesus was sinless. He was only paying for the sins of others - NOT HIS OWN.

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.

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.

If you want to get technical, IT IS THE BLOOD that makes atonement (Lev. 17:11). Jesus' blood was poured out on the cross. Payment was made. There is no need for HIS BODY to remain dead. God wouldn't even have to put back the old blood (so you can't object that "the price" is being taken back), but give Him a fresh blood supply.

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.

Regards,
xcav8tor