WHEN DID CHRIST GO INTO HELL?

[Eddie Ramos]

To be more specific, my question for this thread is at what point between Christ's death on the cross on Friday afternoon in 33 A.D., and his resurrection Sunday morning, did his soul go into hell (the grave)? Doesn't the Bible tell us that his soul went with the thief to paradise that very day?

Luke 23:42–43 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

But we know that his soul was indeed in hell (the grave) because of this passage:

Psalm 16:10 (KJV 1900)
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

And rather than responding with what scholars think or what the general consensus is, please open and use the scriptures to provide the answers, as the scriptures are the authority of the children of God. My goal here is to show that there is no way to harmonize these two scriptures with the Bible if we believe that Christ died only once, at the cross in 33 A.D. But if we can see that he died twice (once before the world began and then again at the cross in 33 A.D.) then we have perfect harmony with the scriptures.

[JehovahsWitness]

So either one of two things is true here: (a) the New Testament authors used the term "resurrection" in a completely different way from everyone else before, during, and after them, including later Christians, or (b) your interpretation of Paul and other New Testament authors is wrong.

All things being equal, we would have to suspect that (b) is more likely the case.

Well then my money is on (A)" New Testament authors used the term "resurrection" in a completely different way from everyone else before" Actually, it is somewhat of a false dichtomy since whether you or anyone views the type* of resurrection Christ (and Christ's brothers) had as "completely" new or just plain "common old garden" new is irrelevant, it was just NEW.

Returning to life (after having been dead) to immortal spirit life had never happened before and the Jews had no concept of it in their lexicon. End of story. That is not to say the basis was not already in their scripture since, as I have said, the Hebrew bible (for example in the book of Job) does depict a spiritual realm and the Jews should have deduced their God lived and the angels lived in that realm. Whether they did or not grasp that Christ was resurrected in a body that made returning to that realm (without dying a second time) possible is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Paul explained this in as clear a way possible. The only real point of discussion is essentially speculative, what WORD would the Christian writers now employ for this "new phenonemen". A point which I have already addressed in my POST #55: viewtopic.php?p=1114973#p1114973

Paul explain the Christian concept of "resurrection" thereby establishing definitively what the word was to mean within the Christian community of Christ's (born again) brothers. There is not reason to impose a dichotomy where (at least for those of us that take a wholistic approach to scripture) it does not belong

NOTE : The reason I say a new "type" of resurrection is, if we take the word to mean a "standing (back) up" to LIFE (after having been "laid down" in death), then the word can apply to both a physical flesh and blood resurrection (familiar to the jews) and a spirit body resurrection (that Christ experienced).




CHRISTIAN LEXICON

Indeed to a degree the Jehovahs Witnesses community are a reflection of what happened in the first century in that we find ourselves in a position where nearly every major theological concept we hold is, to a greater lesser degree, different from the rest of the world. Although not inspired, our writers therefore have to present within the body of our own library or "canon", what is meant when they use a word others have become familiar with through pagan or apostate Christianity. I am beginning to suspect this is why we are having difficulty communicating on this subject.

If the words DEAD, SOUL, RESURRECTION, SPIRITS, SPIRIT BODY (the latter being an entirely foreign concept for most, the idea that a spirit has a distinct form or body) all carry different biblical meanings to that which most people believe, there is little wonder dichotomies are perceived as lurking behind evey cloud.

I myself have to constantly add paragraphs (or links) to my responses because people I post to need to be reminded what scriptures depict. For example, what a SPIRIT is capable of doing ie.,(and here we are forced to "invent" or adopt a word to communicate) "materialize" (take on solid human form) , eat, be touched, make themselves visible, rise in the air, appear and disappear instantly etc... ). In short, in the mind of my readers SPIRIT = can't be seen/touched, can't eat; HUMAN = can be seen/touch , can eat. But their dichotomy is entirely of their own making.

Thus is the problem of lexicon. If in 2,000 years the Jehovahs Witnesses disappeared, how would historians know what any of these words meant TO US? I suspect you don't even know and you are communicating with one at the moment. How accurate would their conclusions be if they studied the annuals of Christendoms literature? And yet here we are, apart and alone with our own understanding of theological terms, an odd little island with our odd little lexicon; and here is the point :

conserving our own seperate and distinct theology while at the same time employing words that carry or have been attibuted (in our opinion) false, inaccurate or incomplete connotations or meanings (think: the word resurrection ONLY applying to returning to life as a human/flesh and blood person)

No doubt you would propose Jehovahs Witnesses can't believe something entirely different because if they did they wouldnt USE THE SAME WORDS. ... yet here we are doing exactly that ! We say SOUL and don't mean invisible part of human that survives death, we say DEATH and mean NON EXISTENCE (as opposed to continued life in a different form),.... we say PARADISE and don't mean heaven. We say RESURRECTION without the word imposing the dichotomy of spirit or physical. We say SPIRIT and we mean something which can take on human form and do anything a human can do (including from the Genesis account, have sex and father children).

The first century Christians did what JWs do today, namely attach their own meanings to theological terms. And the only way to understand their use of terms is to look to their canon to establish through use, what meanings they attached to words, without bias or prejudice imposed by apostate judaism, historical or modern day apostate christendom or pagan literature.

[boatsnguitars]

Christ had the same body until the time he ascended into heaven. It was at that point that he changed into his spiritual body, typifying what will take place at the catching up of the saints in the last day.

Where is that body now? The bones?

When Christ rose from the dead in his same physical body, he ascended up to heaven 40 days later. Whenever the Bible talks about a body going into heaven, it undergoes a change, a transformation, if you will, where the corruptible earthly body of flesh and bones, transforms into a spiritual body, of which, we're norepinephrine given too much information about in the Bible, but we do know that this incorruptible spiritual body, is an actual body indeed.

Job records the resurrection of the saints this way:

Job 19:25-26 (KJV)
For I know that my redeemer liveth,
and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
yet in my flesh shall I see God:

The transformation of the corruptible body into its incorruptible body, for those who are changed while they are still alive (like Christ and Enoch and Elijah), means that they don't actually die in order to be changed.

Hebrews 11:5 (KJV) 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

So this miraculous change that takes place doesn't mean that this physical body is left somewhere and another body is inhabited, it means that it's changed from one body to another.

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 (KJV) 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

It appears your translation is what the clergy tells the laity, not what Biblical Scholars say:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
26. and though after my skin worms destroy] See trans. above. The word destroy means to break off, strike down or off, as branches from a tree (Isaiah 10:34). The words literally run, and after my skin which they have destroyed even this (probably pointing to himself). The indeterminate construction which they have destroyed is equivalent to our passive, which has been destroyed. The Heb. construction must be given somewhat freely in English, as above. The words “worms” and “body” have nothing corresponding in the original.

yet in my flesh] Better, as above, and without my flesh. The margin, out of (or, from) my flesh, suggests the explanation how such opposite senses may be arrived at. The Heb. prep. from has the same ambiguity as from in English. When Regan in Lear 11. 1 says,

“Our father he hath writ, so hath our sister,

Of differences, which I best thought it fit

To answer from our home,”

her words most naturally perhaps suggest the meaning that she thought it best to answer at home, her home being the place from which the answer was sent. Her meaning, however, is that she thought it best to answer when she was away from home. Similarly when Job says, from (or, out of) my flesh shall I see God, the meaning may be, that (looking) from his flesh he shall see God, i. e. as A. V. in his flesh; or that he shall see God, (when) away from his flesh, i. e. without his flesh. The context and general scope of the passage decides for the latter sense. For a similar use of the Heb. prep. see ch. Job 11:15, away from (=without) spot; Job 21:9, margin; Job 28:4, they hang (far) away from men, they swing; cf. Genesis 27:39, away from (without) the fatness; Numbers 15:24, marg. The whole expression “after this my skin has been destroyed and without my flesh” means “when I have died under the ravages of my disease.” The words do not express in what condition precisely, but after what events Job shall see God.

Now, I get you could easily insert an idea of some new kind of flesh, which is maybe what Christians did, but that does not seem to be what the writer of Job meant. After all, this is Jewish text and should be interpreted as such.

[Eddie Ramos]

It appears your translation is what the clergy tells the laity, not what Biblical Scholars say:

Now, I get you could easily insert an idea of some new kind of flesh, which is maybe what Christians did, but that does not seem to be what the writer of Job meant. After all, this is Jewish text and should be interpreted as such.

Whenever someone refers to "the scholars", I am reminded that Christ chose to give lay fishermen spiritual understanding that he did not give to "the scholars" of their day, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Nevertheless, even the Pharisees (Jewish teachers of the law) understood that there was such a thing as a resurrection.

Acts 23:6–8 (KJV 1900)
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.


And since they only had the Jewish text to go by, where do you think they learned it from? Exactly, the Old Testament scriptures. And there are only 2 possible scriptures (to my knowledge) where they could have gotten this understanding from.

Job 19:26 (KJV 1900)
And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Psalm 16:8–10 (KJV 1900)
8  I have set the LORD always before me:
Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9  Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth:
My flesh also shall rest in hope.
10  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

And since verse 10 is the messianic Psalm about Christ, verse 9 is the supporting text which speaks of his flesh, meaning his physical body, which saw no corruption while in the tomb and then resurrected.

[boatsnguitars]

It appears your translation is what the clergy tells the laity, not what Biblical Scholars say:

Now, I get you could easily insert an idea of some new kind of flesh, which is maybe what Christians did, but that does not seem to be what the writer of Job meant. After all, this is Jewish text and should be interpreted as such.

Whenever someone refers to "the scholars", I am reminded that Christ chose to give lay fishermen spiritual understanding that he did not give to "the scholars" of their day, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Yes, this is the source of Christians stance of being anti-science, anti-University, anti-education (except of the Bible), Like a cult, Jesus told his followers to only listen to him, that everyone else was lying.

Nevertheless, even the Pharisees (Jewish teachers of the law) understood that there was such a thing as a resurrection.

Acts 23:6–8 (KJV 1900)
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.


And since they only had the Jewish text to go by, where do you think they learned it from? Exactly, the Old Testament scriptures. And there are only 2 possible scriptures (to my knowledge) where they could have gotten this understanding from.

They got those ideas from the Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. The same place they got most of their ideas. Myths aren't new. These ideas were bouncing around all over the Middle East for thousands of years. Read up on it - I'm not lying.
Resurrection was known, and even possibly hoped for as early as Paleolithic times.
You are going to get a lot of agreement that Resurrection was a pre-Christian mythology.

Job 19:26 (KJV 1900)
And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Psalm 16:8–10 (KJV 1900)
8  I have set the LORD always before me:
Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9  Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth:
My flesh also shall rest in hope.
10  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

And since verse 10 is the messianic Psalm about Christ, verse 9 is the supporting text which speaks of his flesh, meaning his physical body, which saw no corruption while in the tomb and then resurrected.

So, I already told you what scholars say about Job, you simply choose to ignore it. Classic Religious zealotry.
Your other source is some song lyrics. Wow, stunning...
Your full source is from a book that claims a guy lived in a whale, that there was a global flood, etc. And, even then, it appears to be talking about it in allegory. Jews don't believe in the resurrection, yet they would have been motivated to. Why is that? Because they're not as smart as you?
You are taking this way too literally and seriously.

And, what do you call the wounds that Thomas stuck his fingers through? How is that not corrupted?

All in all, you will - some day - have to accept these are just religious tales. They make you feel good, they make you think you can overcome death, which is an existential fear for most people, but they aren't real. Just read the Bible and understand what the authors goal was. Read other myths, and religious texts and see how all the claims are unfalsifiable and just as bizarre.
Reda up on why people are religious in the first place.

[Eddie Ramos]

It appears your translation is what the clergy tells the laity, not what Biblical Scholars say:

Now, I get you could easily insert an idea of some new kind of flesh, which is maybe what Christians did, but that does not seem to be what the writer of Job meant. After all, this is Jewish text and should be interpreted as such.

Whenever someone refers to "the scholars", I am reminded that Christ chose to give lay fishermen spiritual understanding that he did not give to "the scholars" of their day, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Yes, this is the source of Christians stance of being anti-science, anti-University, anti-education (except of the Bible), Like a cult, Jesus told his followers to only listen to him, that everyone else was lying.

Nevertheless, even the Pharisees (Jewish teachers of the law) understood that there was such a thing as a resurrection.

Acts 23:6–8 (KJV 1900)
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.


And since they only had the Jewish text to go by, where do you think they learned it from? Exactly, the Old Testament scriptures. And there are only 2 possible scriptures (to my knowledge) where they could have gotten this understanding from.

They got those ideas from the Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. The same place they got most of their ideas. Myths aren't new. These ideas were bouncing around all over the Middle East for thousands of years. Read up on it - I'm not lying.
Resurrection was known, and even possibly hoped for as early as Paleolithic times.
You are going to get a lot of agreement that Resurrection was a pre-Christian mythology.

Job 19:26 (KJV 1900)
And though after my skin worms destroy this body,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Psalm 16:8–10 (KJV 1900)
8  I have set the LORD always before me:
Because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9  Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth:
My flesh also shall rest in hope.
10  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

And since verse 10 is the messianic Psalm about Christ, verse 9 is the supporting text which speaks of his flesh, meaning his physical body, which saw no corruption while in the tomb and then resurrected.

So, I already told you what scholars say about Job, you simply choose to ignore it. Classic Religious zealotry.
Your other source is some song lyrics. Wow, stunning...
Your full source is from a book that claims a guy lived in a whale, that there was a global flood, etc. And, even then, it appears to be talking about it in allegory. Jews don't believe in the resurrection, yet they would have been motivated to. Why is that? Because they're not as smart as you?
You are taking this way too literally and seriously.

And, what do you call the wounds that Thomas stuck his fingers through? How is that not corrupted?

All in all, you will - some day - have to accept these are just religious tales. They make you feel good, they make you think you can overcome death, which is an existential fear for most people, but they aren't real. Just read the Bible and understand what the authors goal was. Read other myths, and religious texts and see how all the claims are unfalsifiable and just as bizarre.
Reda up on why people are religious in the first place.

Thank you for explaining and clarifying your position and view of the scriptures.

[onewithhim]

the pagans at the time of the resurrection had zero knowledge of the facts and wrote (if not from a cultural perspective from a religious one ) a truckload of garbage.

Okay, but you're running well past my point here, which again was this simple observation:

To a first-century Jew or pagan, "resurrection" meant a return to bodily life.

You (post #49) and onewithhim (post #59) have already acknowledged that Jews at the time understood "resurrection" to mean a return to bodily life. As it happens, pagans also knew what "resurrection" meant (post #33), they just didn't generally believe in it. Further still, the early Church Fathers and the Rabbis also understood "resurrection" to mean a return to bodily life.

So, pretty much everyone before, during, and after the writing of the New Testament -- whether they were a Jew, a Christian, or even a pagan -- understood that "resurrection" referred to someone coming back to physical, bodily life. That's simply what that term meant.

I feel like we should all be able to agree on that, right?

If an in depth analysis established every single available pagan text in existence pointed to the word resurrection meaning coming back from Mars as a goldfish, that might be interesting from a cultural point of view but that would have absolutely no bearing on religious TRUTH in general and have **zero bearing on what happened to Christ**.

Let's go with this example. Let's say there was a term in koine Greek that meant "coming back from Mars as a goldfish." Would the early Christians have used that term to describe what happened to Jesus after his death? Clearly not, since that doesn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.

Likewise, if the early Christians believed Jesus became a spirit after he died, they wouldn't have used the term "resurrection" to describe that either. "Resurrection" refers to coming back to physical, bodily life, and so wouldn't reflect what they believed about Jesus.

"Resurrection" literally means "standing up again." This could be with a spirit body as well as a physical one. I believe that the earliest church fathers, in the first century, believed Paul that there will be a spirit resurrection (as he made clear in I Corinthians chapter 15). Any church "fathers" that wrote after the first century were already becoming apostate and their writings are suspect, to put it mildly.

Paul said, about the resurrection of the anointed followers of Christ: the body is "sown in corruption, it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised up in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. It is even so written: 'The first man Adam became a living soul.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (I Corinthians 15:42-45)

[historia]

I am beginning to suspect this is why we are having difficulty communicating on this subject.

I feel like I'm understanding you well. Are you having a hard time understanding me?

Historia, I feel the points you raise here have been addressed in my two subsequent posts

. . .

Did you read them?

I did, but your earlier responses didn't address the thrust of my argument, which is that the early Christians didn't need to redefine any existing terms or concepts in order to articulate the view you are attributing to them.

Your last reply did (finally) address my point head-on:

Returning to life (after having been dead) to immortal spirit life . . . the Jews had no concept of it in their lexicon. End of story.

But this is just historically inaccurate.

There are a number of Second Temple Jewish sources that articulate the idea that, after someone died, they could become a spirit. The Book of the Watchers (now incorporated into 1 Enoch), for examples, says that the "giants" (of Genesis 6:4) became "evil spirits" after they died. The author also has an apocalyptic vision in which he sees the spirit of Abel.

Luke even gives us a glimpse into what Pharisees in the first century believed in his story of Paul before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23:6-9). While the Pharisees at that trial aren't willing to affirm Paul's belief that Jesus was resurrected -- since obviously for them the resurrection is an event that would occur in the age to come, not the present -- they are willing to entertain an alternative explanation of his claims: "What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?" (cf., Acts 12:14-16)

So Jews at that time clearly had both the concept and the vocabulary to describe the idea that Jesus went onto "immortal spirit life" after he died. The issue here is that that concept, and ones like it, were never referred to as "resurrection." In fact, in the two sources I just mentioned, this idea is set in contrast to resurrection.

If in 2,000 years the Jehovahs Witnesses disappeared, how would historians know what any of these words meant TO US?

. . .

No doubt you would propose Jehovahs Witnesses can't believe something entirely different because if they did they wouldnt USE THE SAME WORDS

I do enjoy your analogies.

If I was an historian researching the Witnesses 2,000 years from now, I would look to understand the movement in the historical context in which it emerged. I would observe, for example, that they came out of Adventism, and their views about "death," the "soul," annihilation, etc., were inherited from earlier Adventist teachings. Even if we didn't have any extant Jehovah's Witnesses writings in the future, we would have a good sense from Adventist sources what those terms likely meant to them.

What would be unhelpful for a future historian do is to compare Jehovah's Witnesses to what Christians believed about those things a thousand years before Charles Taze Russell. Obviously, Jehovah's Witness ideas and terminology would seem novel and strange in the context of Medieval Christianity.

But it seems to me that is how you are approaching the early Christians in regard to Jewish concepts and terminology. Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect your comment above about "the Jews had no concept of it in their lexicon" was not based on a survey of Second Temple Jewish sources -- that is, what Jews at the time of Jesus believed -- but rather just from your understanding of what the Jewish scriptures say, which largely reflect Jewish views a thousand years before Jesus.

The first century Christians did what JWs do today, namely attach their own meanings to theological terms. And the only way to understand their use of terms is to look to their canon to establish through use, what meanings they attached to words, without bias or prejudice

Fair enough. But, since your comment here is about "first century Christians," and not just the New Testament, we should also look at other (non-canonical) early Christian sources, a point that onewithhim also thought to bring up:

I believe that the earliest church fathers, in the first century, believed Paul that there will be a spirit resurrection

Let's look into that assertion, confining our analysis to the sources onewithhim previously said were worth giving attention to:

I wouldn't give any attention to so-called disciples' writing after John died at the end of the first century, and after Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius.

Clement discusses the resurrection in 1 Clement.

In chapters 24-25 he gives a few analogies of what resurrection is like, including the analogy of a seed and fruit (like Paul in 1 Cor.) and that of the legendary phoenix, in which the bird was said to die and be reborn. In both analogies the thing that is 'resurrected' is, of course, physical.

He concludes in chapter 50:

All the generations, from Adam even unto this day, are gone by; but they who have been made perfect in love according to the grace of God inhabit the abode of the pious, and shall be made manifest in the visitation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, "Enter into the secret chambers but a little while, until my anger and wrath be passed, and I will remember the good day, and will raise you up from your sepulchers."

Polycarp mentions resurrection in his Letter to the Philippians:

For if we please him in this present world we shall receive from him that which is to come; even as he promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we are worthy citizens of his community, "we shall also reign with him," if we have but faith.

Ignatius mentions resurrection in passing in several of his letters, but makes the most relevant comment in his letter to the Smyrnaens.

In context here he is arguing against Docetists who say Jesus didn't come in the flesh and so only appeared to suffer (cf., 1 John 4:1-3):

He suffered truly, as also he raised himself truly; not as certain unbelievers say, that he suffered in semblance, being themselves mere semblance. And according as their opinions are, so shall it happen to them, for they are without body and demon-like.

For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and his company, he said to them, "Lay hold and handle me, and see that I am not a demon without body." And straightway they touched him, and they believed, being joined unto his flesh and his blood.

None of these passages mention "spirits" or even remotely suggest a "spirit resurrection." The language of believers coming out of their graves and Jesus being in the flesh after his resurrection (just as he was in the flesh before), in fact, seem to clearly indicate a belief in (physical, bodily) resurrection, just as that term was understood by their Jewish contemporaries.

[JehovahsWitness]

Your last reply did (finally) address my point head-on:

Returning to life (after having been dead) to immortal spirit life . . . the Jews had no concept of it in their lexicon. End of story.

But this is just historically inaccurate.

There are a number of Second Temple Jewish sources that articulate the idea that, after someone died, they could become a spirit.

Okay fine. I am not a historian I am a bible student: if by "become a spirit" they meant : after having ceased to exist in any form for a period of time, that same person return to life in a spirit >>body<<<, then excellent. I'm sure you are not referring to the fact that the Jews had, by the first century, adopted to a greater or lesser degree the pagan idea of humans possessing an immortal soul that somehow escapes the confines of a body at death (which of course is not what the bible writers were explaining happened to Christ).

I welcome details as to the terminology you are refering to.ie "Christ died and on the third day was [here is where you insert the alternative word] ".

If they had a term/word * for exactly what happened to Christ and chose not to adopt it, then they would have had their reasons. I suspect it was because that alternative term (I would appreciate you giving me the term they used for the above) was not exactly what they wanted to convey and/ or because, as has been explained, the biblical meaning of the word RESURRECTION was sufficiently encompassing to cover what happened to Christ and his born again brothers.

* I can't see from your post that you have actually said what the WORD/TERM is to which you refer

[JehovahsWitness]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect your comment above about "the Jews had no concept of it in their lexicon" was not based on a survey of Second Temple Jewish sources -- that is, what Jews at the time of Jesus believed -- but rather just from your understanding of what the Jewish scriptures say, which largely reflect Jewish views a thousand years before Jesus.

And there we are; I mentioned in an earlier post our different approaches, you seem to be are seeking to get a picture of beliefs generally held at the time of writing, beliefs which you conclude will be synonymous with what we find in scripture and we JWs are seeking to understand what inspired scripture teach which can exist independently of what even the writer believed, how much less his contemporaries.

The writers were, we believe, writing under divine direction, which means they may have understood what they wrote but then again, they may not. As "human pens" in the divine hand, everything outside of what was eventually recorded in writing is ultimately irrelevant. So, for examlle, if they wrote : "Christ was resurrected" all we have is what does resurrection mean in the divine canon, and it is totally irrelevant to us if the other scriptural references date from one day earlier or one thousand years earlier as long as they are part of inspired scripture (2 Tim 3:16).

Now we are obviously dealing with language, so we at any given time have to ask, in that language what does this word mean. But we are asking what the word means, not what did people believe about what the word meant. A subtle but important difference. Take, for example the word GOD. It basically means "powerful one" . But what did people believe about GOD...all manner of things. That God transformed humself into animals and sometimes comes down and fathers half human half animal demi-gods? Yes, why not?! So are we to conclude the Hebrew scriptures allow for this idea? Could Jesus have had Pan in mind when he told us to pray Our Father who art in heaven?

All we need from outside sources is tne basic root meanicng of the word, which is not that difficult to find when it comes to scripture. All theological connotations must come from the inspired writings to be considered accurate. If a new /alternative /expanded meaning is superimposed on a word, it is for the inspired writer to explain himself to dispel confusion.

That is our position.

..But, since your comment here is about "first century Christians," and not just the New Testament, we should also look at other (non-canonical) early Christian sources...

We can do, I'm not adverse to a bit if history, its always enlightening. But being non-canonical it is not INSPIRED so it is never automatically considered religious truth, if it supports scripture then fine , we will use the reference. If not then the writer was mistaken in some way.


NOTE: when Jehovah's Witnesses refer to "first century Christians" we are nearly always refering to those that were contempories with the Apostles. Caution: even being a contemporary does not mean they might no have entertained mistaken ideas.

[historia]

JWs are seeking to understand what inspired scripture teach which can exist independently of what even the writer believed, how much less his contemporaries.

I appreciate that point, as this is an idea that has long existed within Judaism and Christianity. And if you want to confine your assertions to theological conclusions you draw from Scripture based on the special way Scripture is read, that's cool by me.

But at various points in your arguments you and onewithhim have also made historical claims, including your earlier (now retracted) comment about what terms and concepts were familiar to Jews or both of your comments about what "first century Christians" or "the earliest church fathers" believed.

NOTE: when Jehovah's Witnesses refer to "first century Christians" we are nearly always refering to those that were contempories with the Apostles.

Sure, Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of John, and Clement knew Peter and perhaps other apostles. They were contemporaries with the apostles.

And, while I appreciate the fact these are not, for you, inspired or authoritative sources, I think onewithhim's instinct was right here: If the apostles really did teach a "spirit resurrection," as you both are claiming, we would expect to see that teaching reflected in the works of their disciples and successors.

The fact that we don't, and those apostolic church fathers instead appear to believe in a physical, bodily resurrection for Jesus and all believers, gives much greater support to the view that Paul and the other New Testament writers believed in a physical, bodily resurrection.

you seem to be are seeking to get a picture of beliefs generally held at the time of writing, beliefs which you conclude will be synonymous with what we find in scripture

More precisely, I'm looking at the language these other sources are using to describe various beliefs about the afterlife.

In doing so, we can see that those that depict the dead returning to bodily, physical life use the word "resurrection" to describe that idea. While those that depict the dead becoming spirits or angels don't use the word "resurrection" to describe that idea.

I'm sure you are not referring to the fact that the Jews had, by the first century, adopted to a greater or lesser degree the pagan idea of humans possessing an immortal soul that somehow escapes the confines of a body at death

There are examples of that in the Second Temple literature, too. But the texts I have in mind never talk about an immortal soul leaving the body at death.

In addition to the two references already mentioned in my last reply, consider 4 Maccabees 17:1-5, 2 Baruch 51:7-10, Testament of Moses 10:7-10, and the Book of Noah (in 1 Enoch 108:10-12).

These texts variously talk about martyrs who have died now being "set in heaven;" or that on the Day of Judgement the righteous will be "made like unto the angels" and "in the heights of that [invisible] world shall they dwell;" or that God will "summon the spirits," "transform," and "bring forth in shining light" those who do good, or that God will "exalt you, and he will cause you to approach to the heaven of the stars."

So Jews at that time could use a variety of similar terms and phrases to describe the dead having some future immortal spirit life. There is no mention in these texts of the dead returning to physical, bodily life, and for that reason these texts also don't use the word "resurrection."

So from all of this we can safely conclude that when first-century Jewish and Christian authors talk about "resurrection" they are talking about a return to physical, bodily life.