Resurrection, what is it?

[Checkpoint]

We are familiar with the word, and know what it is in a general sense.

Yet when it comes down to it, our views of exactly what it means, what it involves, and why it is promised, vary, probably more than we realise.

That is because how we see it reflects how we see the creation of man, and our ultimate destiny.

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

What about the resurrection of Jesus, is it the same for us as it was for him?

Is the resurrection of the unsaved any different?

Acts 24:15

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

[JehovahsWitness]

I get it.. nothing here means what it actually says..

I would disagree, the way I see it, everything means what is actually being said, it's just some things are actually being said literally and other thing actually being said metaphorically.

So, when the Bible says that righteous people will live on earth eternally... A METAPHOR ONLY?

No Jehovah's Witnesses take that verse to be literal.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by JehovahsWitness]



[center]An eternal earth with eternal people on it
Part two: A possible contradiction[/center]

I get it.. nothing here means what it actually says..

I would disagree, the way I see it, everything means what is actually being said, it's just some things are actually being said literally and other thing actually being said metaphorically.

I was speaking specifically about the part where eternal people live on an eternal earth, and not about the Bible as a whole, sorry. I could have been more clear.

But I seem to agree with you !!
That would be great.

Let me know if we have achieved an agreement.
In my opinion, we need more of this on the site.
___________________

Here is my opinion concerning poetic vs. non-poetic language :

The Bible has parts where we can take words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory, or as we usually say "literally". And then, a whole lot of more problematic parts of the Bible depart from a literal use of words or as we sometimes say, metaphorical. I used the word "poetic" for those parts. I take the Bible to be written poetically. Sometimes, however, the poetry is so FAR from any literal meaning that I have no choice but to interpret it in a purely subjective manner. Like I have to do for many fine poems.
___________________

So, let's see if we can agree:
Below, I set out a breakdown of what I think we might be able to agree upon further. I call agreements between any theist and myself "Really getting somewhere". I hope we do. Here goes:
___________________

If we are referring to the English Bible:

• 1. The Bible has to be translated. Translations differ somewhat. ( and things are "lost" in translation" ).
  2. Some Bible passages are literal ( mean just what it says ) and some are figurative ( doesn't mean just what it says )
  3. We have to decide what parts are figurative, and what parts are literal.
  4. We have to decide what the figurative parts mean. This varies hugely. People debate the meanings of these parts all the time.

Would you be so kind as to tell us if you agree with any of these 4 statements? If you don't, could you say why? Thank you. Explaining that will go far to help me understand your position.
___________________

So, when the Bible says that righteous people will live on earth eternally... A METAPHOR ONLY?

No Jehovah's Witnesses take that verse to be literal.

I'm sorry, but there seems to be a problem here:

You might have made a typo of some sort. Previously, in post 48, you said the very opposite, which would be a contradiction:

"I do not take Scriptures that seem to be suggesting such a thing to be speaking literally but figuratively. "

So, as to eternal people on an eternal earth: Figurative or literal?
Could you clear that up for us?

[JLB32168]

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

It you ask me it was to demonstrate His destruction of the power of death. As Adams sin brought death, Christs resurrection brought life and it wasnt just a nice afterthought. It was an essential part of the recapitulation of mans creation.

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

In secular contexts the word is used to describe the expulsion of a group of peoples from their native land. They got up and were forced to leave their ancestral lands. I see no reason to interpret the word in some metaphorical way.

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

As I understand it, they are resurrected to condemnation. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they will experience Gods goodness and love as torment and not an active decision of God to punish them.

[onewithhim]

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

It you ask me it was to demonstrate His destruction of the power of death. As Adams sin brought death, Christs resurrection brought life and it wasnt just a nice afterthought. It was an essential part of the recapitulation of mans creation.

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

In secular contexts the word is used to describe the expulsion of a group of peoples from their native land. They got up and were forced to leave their ancestral lands. I see no reason to interpret the word in some metaphorical way.

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

As I understand it, they are resurrected to condemnation. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they will experience Gods goodness and love as torment and not an active decision of God to punish them.

God implores us to reason with him (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), so obviously he wants us to use our God-given thought processes to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't. What sense is there in resurrecting someone and then turning around and destroying him once again? No sense at all. If the person is dead and he will not be allowed to enter Paradise on Earth, then why not just leave him dead? Why bring him back to life to tell him he is going to die and then boom destroy him all over again? Let's be reasonable here.

[JehovahsWitness]

You might have made a typo of some sort. Previously, in post 48, you said the very opposite, which would be a contradiction:

"I do not take Scriptures that seem to be suggesting such a thing to be speaking literally but figuratively. "

So, as to eternal people on an eternal earth: Figurative or literal?
Could you clear that up for us?

Question:

• Isn't the destruction of the earth inevitable, according the the best modern day science?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/doo ... rding-nasa

I do not take Scriptures that seem to be suggesting such a thing to be speaking literally but figuratively.

JW

I see, sorry, my post wasn't clear, I was refering to any scriptures that seem to refer to the destruction of the planet earth as not being literal. I do believe people will literally live on this our planet earth forever and that the planet will not be destroyed.

Hope that clear up the mix up. My bad.




JW


Jehovah's Witnesses believe this our planet earth will be the promised "paradise"

[Checkpoint]

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

It you ask me it was to demonstrate His destruction of the power of death. As Adams sin brought death, Christs resurrection brought life and it wasnt just a nice afterthought. It was an essential part of the recapitulation of mans creation.

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

In secular contexts the word is used to describe the expulsion of a group of peoples from their native land. They got up and were forced to leave their ancestral lands. I see no reason to interpret the word in some metaphorical way.

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

As I understand it, they are resurrected to condemnation. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they will experience Gods goodness and love as torment and not an active decision of God to punish them.

God implores us to reason with him (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), so obviously he wants us to use our God-given thought processes to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't. What sense is there in resurrecting someone and then turning around and destroying him once again? No sense at all. If the person is dead and he will not be allowed to enter Paradise on Earth, then why not just leave him dead? Why bring him back to life to tell him he is going to die and then boom destroy him all over again? Let's be reasonable here.

This post of yours leaves me in the same position you were at in response to a post of mine.

What you wrote is not what I expected from onewithhim at all!

What does make sense, what is reasonable, to you, on this issue of the resurrection of the "unjust"?

[onewithhim]

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

It you ask me it was to demonstrate His destruction of the power of death. As Adams sin brought death, Christs resurrection brought life and it wasnt just a nice afterthought. It was an essential part of the recapitulation of mans creation.

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

In secular contexts the word is used to describe the expulsion of a group of peoples from their native land. They got up and were forced to leave their ancestral lands. I see no reason to interpret the word in some metaphorical way.

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

As I understand it, they are resurrected to condemnation. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they will experience Gods goodness and love as torment and not an active decision of God to punish them.

God implores us to reason with him (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), so obviously he wants us to use our God-given thought processes to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't. What sense is there in resurrecting someone and then turning around and destroying him once again? No sense at all. If the person is dead and he will not be allowed to enter Paradise on Earth, then why not just leave him dead? Why bring him back to life to tell him he is going to die and then boom destroy him all over again? Let's be reasonable here.

This post of yours leaves me in the same position you were at in response to a post of mine.

What you wrote is not what I expected from onewithhim at all!

What does make sense, what is reasonable, to you, on this issue of the resurrection of the "unjust"?

The "unjust" are those who never had the chance to learn about the true God and His Son. This would take in the majority of mankind who lived from Adam up to now. Even now there are people on the earth who have never heard the good news of the Kingdom. Everyone who has not had the chance to make an informed decision about whether or not to accept Jehovah as their Sovereign, and Jesus as the means by which Jehovah saves, will be afforded that chance during Jesus' Thousand-Year Reign, after being resurrected.

Why do you feel that resurrecting people just to immediately annihilate them again, makes more sense?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by onewithhim]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
Reasoning with the undetectable, and God's inscrutability.
Part One[/center]


By the way, folks, onewithhim has unfortunately chosen to ignore my posts, so if any other Christian would like to answer my questions below, I'd be grateful.

Thank you.

God implores us to reason with him (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), so obviously he wants us to use our God-given thought processes to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't.

I can't reason with someone I can't even detect.

What sense is there in resurrecting someone and then turning around and destroying him once again? No sense at all.

The inscrutability of God.
Who knows what God has in mind?

If God wants your opinion, he'll give it to ya.
But, I suppose we could REASON with God... let's try that, shall we?

If the person is dead and he will not be allowed to enter Paradise on Earth, then why not just leave him dead? Why bring him back to life to tell him he is going to die and then boom destroy him all over again? Let's be reasonable here.

I think you have to reason this out with GOD, not us.
How should we know?

____________

Questions:

1. If God implores us to reason with him, how come he doesn't make himself available for a discussion with outsiders to the faith?
2. Should one assume that if a human doesn't know something, that the "God" doesn't, either?

____________

[onewithhim]

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

It you ask me it was to demonstrate His destruction of the power of death. As Adams sin brought death, Christs resurrection brought life and it wasnt just a nice afterthought. It was an essential part of the recapitulation of mans creation.

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

In secular contexts the word is used to describe the expulsion of a group of peoples from their native land. They got up and were forced to leave their ancestral lands. I see no reason to interpret the word in some metaphorical way.

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

As I understand it, they are resurrected to condemnation. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they will experience Gods goodness and love as torment and not an active decision of God to punish them.

God implores us to reason with him (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), so obviously he wants us to use our God-given thought processes to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't. What sense is there in resurrecting someone and then turning around and destroying him once again? No sense at all. If the person is dead and he will not be allowed to enter Paradise on Earth, then why not just leave him dead? Why bring him back to life to tell him he is going to die and then boom destroy him all over again? Let's be reasonable here.

This post of yours leaves me in the same position you were at in response to a post of mine.

What you wrote is not what I expected from onewithhim at all!

What does make sense, what is reasonable, to you, on this issue of the resurrection of the "unjust"?

The "unjust" are those who never had the chance to learn about the true God and His Son. This would take in the majority of mankind who lived from Adam up to now. Even now there are people on the earth who have never heard the good news of the Kingdom. Everyone who has not had the chance to make an informed decision about whether or not to accept Jehovah as their Sovereign, and Jesus as the means by which Jehovah saves, will be afforded that chance during Jesus' Thousand-Year Reign, after being resurrected.

Why do you feel that resurrecting people just to immediately annihilate them again, makes more sense?

Would you kindly respond to my question? I would like to hear your explanation.

[Checkpoint]

What do you think resurrection is, and why is it an essential part of God's plan?

It you ask me it was to demonstrate His destruction of the power of death. As Adams sin brought death, Christs resurrection brought life and it wasnt just a nice afterthought. It was an essential part of the recapitulation of mans creation.

Does it refer to only the body, or to the person? If to the person, in what way?

In secular contexts the word is used to describe the expulsion of a group of peoples from their native land. They got up and were forced to leave their ancestral lands. I see no reason to interpret the word in some metaphorical way.

having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.

As I understand it, they are resurrected to condemnation. From the Eastern Orthodox perspective, they will experience Gods goodness and love as torment and not an active decision of God to punish them.

God implores us to reason with him (Isaiah 1:18, KJV), so obviously he wants us to use our God-given thought processes to sort out what makes sense and what doesn't. What sense is there in resurrecting someone and then turning around and destroying him once again? No sense at all. If the person is dead and he will not be allowed to enter Paradise on Earth, then why not just leave him dead? Why bring him back to life to tell him he is going to die and then boom destroy him all over again? Let's be reasonable here.

This post of yours leaves me in the same position you were at in response to a post of mine.

What you wrote is not what I expected from onewithhim at all!

What does make sense, what is reasonable, to you, on this issue of the resurrection of the "unjust"?

The "unjust" are those who never had the chance to learn about the true God and His Son. This would take in the majority of mankind who lived from Adam up to now. Even now there are people on the earth who have never heard the good news of the Kingdom. Everyone who has not had the chance to make an informed decision about whether or not to accept Jehovah as their Sovereign, and Jesus as the means by which Jehovah saves, will be afforded that chance during Jesus' Thousand-Year Reign, after being resurrected.

Why do you feel that resurrecting people just to immediately annihilate them again, makes more sense?

Would you kindly respond to my question? I would like to hear your explanation.

Please accept my apology for not answering you on this one.

I had had a feeling there was a post from someone I needed to answer, but for some reason lost track of what thread it was on, so I guess I just gave up! My bad.

To answer you, I choose to accept what it appears scripture says God will do through Jesus when he comes back to judge the world.

At that time, we are repeatedly told, there will be two groups of people, the saved and the lost.

There is no third group, "those who never had the chance".

This is the day of salvation, it ends as described in 2 Peter 3:7-13 and 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10.