Posted on 01/05/2003 6:00:03 PM PST by EthanNorth
|
Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body |
I have noted that at the core of many skeptical or other arguments on the resurrection of Jesus Christ lies a base assumption that the epistalory NT records could (or must) be interpreted as saying that the resurrected Jesus was not a being with a physical body (as the Gospels make clear), but rather was some sort of ghostly or spiritual being that was not tangible. From this skeptics may run with another ball -- the visions of Jesus were mass hallucinations, or some such like that. The Secular Web's Mr. Friendly Ice-Cream Man, Robert Price, puts it this way in a response to William Lane Craig:
Many New Testament scholars have observed that the conception of the resurrection body implied in 1 Corinthians 15 clashes so violently with that presupposed in the gospels that the latter must be dismissed as secondary embellishments, especially as 1 Corinthians predates the gospels. Craig takes exception. The whole trend of his argument seems to me to belie the point he is ostensibly trying to make, namely that any differences between the two traditions do not imply that 1 Corinthians allows only sightings, subjective visions, while the gospels depict more fulsome encounters replete with dialogue, gestures, touching, and eating. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 rules out such scenes, he says. But surely the very urgency of the matter shows that Craig would feel himself at a great loss if he had to cut loose all those juicy gospel resurrection stories to be left with the skimpy list of terse notes in 1 Corinthians 15. By itself, 1 Corinthians 15 just wouldn't mean much. He wants the appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 to be read as if they had in parentheses after them "See Luke 24; Matthew 28; John 21."
Now even if indeed the rez body (as we shall say) was not physical, this does not automatically disqualify the authenticity and revelatory authority of the appearances; it merely gives some critics another level of excuses to appeal to. But we need not make that point. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the rez body of Jesus clearly was physical, and that this is shown in two ways:
Our survey of background Jewish literature is taken from Pheme Perkins' work Resurrection. Although not all Jews held uniform ideas about resurrection, it will become clear from this survey that the concept always involved a physical reconstitution of the deceased body. There is no room or place for the idea of a "spiritual resurrection", which is an unknown concept in this context, an oxymoron like "square circle" or "concrete rubber".
We may begin our survey with relevant material from the OT:
Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
These three passages, especially Ezekiel, are programmatic for the concept of resurrection. Now here are cites from Judaism at the time of Jesus:
4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.
1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.
Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.
2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.
Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.
Let's now work with the NT evidence, starting with the positive arguments for a physical rez body:
Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]
This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "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."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.
Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.
"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.
In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:
Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.
This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73] There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)
Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.
Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments? Robert Price claims above that the Gospel pictures of the rez Jesus clash "violently" with those in the epistles -- mainly, Paul's material in 1 Cor. 15. Is this truly the case? Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the whole lot:
This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)
Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:
The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.
This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:
Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)
Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:
...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)
We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].
This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:
God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.
And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:
The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.
Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138]
152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.
Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:
Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)
Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)
The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.
Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...
Here our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3. The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!
That said, what if Josephus is indeed accurate? Then we do not have, by definition, "resurrection" -- we have apotheosis. Or actually, maybe we only have pre-resurrection stirrings. There are other passages like these which some speak of as counter to resurrection, but in these cases what we likely have (as in Wisdom of Solomon 3:1, 5:16, 6:17-20, and Josephus on the Essenes) is a description of life for those between death and resurrection, with no actually negative indications against resurrection. In any event it is unwise to proceed without caution and assert that we have evidence that Christianity could have preached a "spiritual resurrection." It is especially dangerous to use cites uncritically, for as Wright also notes, in describing the intermediate state, Jewish writers sometimes borrowed Hellenistic language "which in its own context denotes a permanent disembodied state; but they still make it clear that bodily resurrection is the end they have in sight."
Finally, it is illict to use Eccl. 12:7 as a point against phsyical resurrection in light of that book's genre (see also here).
Conclusion -- There is no way to escape the fact that the contextual background of the NT, and the NT itself, clearly teaches a Jesus whose body was physically resurrected into tangible form. Proponents of a "spiritual" resurrection are either misinformed or else are trying to "escape from the scandal of a physical resurrection." [Gundry, 163]
Addendum: "Firstfruits" of the Resurrection: In light of the above it has been shown tha certain skeptical contentions about Christ's order as the first resurrected are also wrong. The raising of Jairus' daughter, and of Samuel as a ghost, do not fit in this paradigm.
THe one set of people who do fit in the paradigm are Matthew's resurrected saints. At this point some skeptics may bring in two verses:
Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
Wouldn't Matt's saints be "first"? In chronology, yes, but that is not the sense here. In Acts the word used for "first" is protos, and it can mean first in order, but it also can mean first in importance. For example, Matthew 10:2 reads, "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother...." This is clearly a ranking of importance recognizing Peter as the "chief" of the apostles in rank. If it were a numerical listing, we would read, "...second, Andrew..."
1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
This verse is not relevant to chronology, either. The word "firstfruits" is aparche, which alludes to the Jewish firstfruits sacrifice. Matthew's saints were not sacrifices at all as Jesus was.
Sources
The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.
That author states the above about anastatsis.
Putting aside everything else for the moment, how do you think the author would treat this scripture:
Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
Resurrection is anastatsis in the verse above. What would the authors, or your, view be of this scripture?
Ethan: Problematic way of putting it, Douglas. It isn't "my positiion" as if it were a novel and peculiar invention of mine. It is the position of the Christian faith based upon the New Testament. Solid, reputable scholarship has been provided substantiating this fact.
Moreover, your use of "give us more depth on your position" again is an unethical, albeit subtle, implication, vis., that I am pitted against everyone else here and I have the peculiar, novel belief that is up against serious Biblical scholarship and the Christian faith, when in point of fact it is you that is at total odds with the serious scholarship on the subject and it is you that stands outside and against the Christian faith.
DouglasKC: "Putting aside everything else for the moment,"
Ethan: Red herring.
DouglasKC: "how do you think the author would treat this scripture"
Ethan: I'm not J.P. Holding. But it is evident that solid, overwhelming evidence has been presented and you're straining under the dissonance; you're attempting to find anything you think you can muster to squeeze your way out and maintain your tradition of Armstrongism, against the facts of the New Testament, the grammar and context of the language and serious Biblical scholarship.
The Scripture that you raised in your red herring is Luke 20:34-36:
"Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:34-36, emphasis mine).
The verse in question is in reference to whether or not there will be marriage in the Resurrection; it has nothing to say about the composition of the resurrection body. Your confusion is further compounded because you are laboring under a straw man based on the fact that you don't know Biblical theology or Christian teaching. There are differences between the pre and post resurrection bodies. One is dominated by the sinful nature; the other is dominated and oriented wholly by the Spirit. One is mortal and subject to death; the other is immortal. One is marred by sin; the other is redeemed and glorified. The composition and nature of the Resurrection body is contextually stated here in Luke 24:37-39:
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).
Regarding your red herring of Luke 20:34-36, the analogy of "they are like angels" refers to the immortality of the resurrection state, and the emphasis of the passage is simply that marriage is simply not an aspect of life in the resurrection. Even Armstrongism and the United Church of God don't teach that men will become angels in the resurrection, so even on the basis of Armstrongism your usage is highly flawed.
But you have taken the wisest route—you have avoided and side-stepped all of the exegesis and scholarship contained in Holding's essay, as well as the Biblical exegesis and scholarship of William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Robert Gundry, et. al. On the basis of an exegesis of Scripture, the meanings and usage of the language of the NT and the definitive works of scholarship on the subject you are in complete error.
You even had the audacity to make the absurd claim that Dr. Robert Gundry was not only "wrong" but dead wrong on the use and meaning of the word Soma in the New Testament, which is rather interesting.
When it gets to that level, you have no recourse but to resort to crackpot statements and call into question the scholarly abilities of men such as Dr. Gundry, which you have no ability or scholarly basis to evaluate the work let alone say it is "dead wrong" and claim to be a superior expert in NT Greek than he (and scores of other actual Biblical scholars).
On the level playing field of the Greek language, syntax, grammer, usage, etc., you come to the field unarmed and simply dimiss actual Bible-honoring scholars as "dead wrong" when you have no idea of what you are talking about.
If I handed you the NA27 and you had nothing but the NA27, without any outside reference of any kind, could you read the Gospel of John?
They come from those who have said to themselves, "I have seen the Truth and it makes no sense". LOL
Thanks for posting this great article on one of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian religion, Ethan.
Of course people may step outside of the essential/foundational doctrines of the Christian faith, and believe whatever suits them --- they just can't legitimately call what they believe, "Christian beliefs".
My fear is unless God opens his eyes he will not see it
Regarding your red herring of Luke 20:34-36, the analogy of "they are like angels" refers to the immortality of the resurrection state, and the emphasis of the passage is simply that marriage is simply not an aspect of life in the resurrection.
I thought this verse (Luke 20:33-36) was interesting. I ascribed no motivations to it, I just wanted your opinion.
Luk 20:34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
Luk 20:35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
I have decided to depend on your scholarly knowledge for this, so please help me out. I have a couple of further questions to ask about this passage.
1. Why is marriage not an aspect of the resurrection? Do you think it's possible that our resurrected bodies are essentially "sexless", meaning that we no longer sexually reproduce and this is the reason why we no longer marry? What would your explanation be?
2. Why do you think the author neglected to include this verse in his article as further evidence of a flesh and bone resurrection?
3. What in your opinion, would best describe the body of an angel?
But you have taken the wisest route—you have avoided and side-stepped all of the exegesis and scholarship contained in Holding's essay,
I wouldn't say I sidestepped it, in fact I specifically said I was putting aside everything else for the moment because I wanted to find out why this verse was ommited from your experts proof of a flesh and bone resurrection and what it meant to you or him. I'll get to the other stuff.
Doug said: "Interesting article Ethan. Thanks for posting it, it give us more depth on your position". Who is the "us" he refers to? Does he have a frog in his pocket? He was the only one who stood in opposition to this doctrine, as you rightly pointed out. It was obviously my position, too. Good critique of his answer, and the subtle digs he embedded in them. And yet, he still tried to wiggle out of it. Thanks for holding his feet to the fire.
Actually nobdysfool, "us" is me and my wife. I genuinely meant that question to be an honest exploration of his ideas. He went and got all defensive on me for simply posting scripture and then posting a question about that scripture.
Ethan: A very weak and pathetic cop-out. The context of your statement was in response to the participants on this forum--you know that. Those that engage in heretical doctrine also exhibit corrupt morals. While orthodoxy doesn't guarantee orthopraxy, heresy always manifests itself in heteropraxy.
DouglasKC: "I genuinely meant that question to be an honest exploration of his ideas (emphasis added)"
Ethan: He's doing it again. They aren't "my ideas," i.e., as if it were a novel and peculiar invention of mine. It is the position of the Christian faith based upon the New Testament. Solid, reputable scholarship has been provided substantiating this fact.
Again it is an unethical, albeit subtle, implication, vis., that I am pitted against everyone else here and I have the peculiar, novel belief that is up against serious Biblical scholarship and the Christian faith, when in point of fact it is Douglass that is at total odds with the serious scholarship on the subject and it is Douglas that stands outside and against the Christian faith.
Douglas has been shown that he is ignorant of basic Biblical theology, Christian teaching and grammatical usage. His comments concerning Dr. Robert Gundry's definitive work, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1976) alone, vis., that not only is Dr. Gundry "wrong" but he is dead wrong, categorize him as more of a crackpot than simply someone that is ignorant of the facts (which he most assuredly is).
Douglas cannot read NT Greek; he knows nothing of Greek grammar, syntax or usage; he knows nothing about Greek prepositions, Greek tenses, or the use of the Greek article. Yet he claims that Dr. Robert Gundry's definitive work on the subject is not merely "wrong" but dead wrong. That he has never read Dr. Gundry's work seems to be inconsequential to him.
As I previously stated, when it gets to that level, Douglas has no recourse but to resort to crackpot statements and call into question the scholarly abilities of men such as Dr. Gundry, which he has no ability or scholarly basis to evaluate the work let alone say it is "dead wrong" and claim to be a superior expert in NT Greek than he (and scores of other actual Biblical scholars).
Douglas, if I handed you the NA27 and you had nothing but the NA27, without any outside reference of any kind, could you read the Gospel of John?
1. Why is marriage not an aspect of the resurrection? Do you think it's possible that our resurrected bodies are essentially "sexless", meaning that we no longer sexually reproduce and this is the reason why we no longer marry? What would your explanation be?
2. Why do you think the author neglected to include this verse in his article as further evidence of a flesh and bone resurrection?
3. What in your opinion, would best describe the body of an angel?
You're absolutely right! I chose the wrong word...yours is better!
Essentially, Armstrongites do not believe in a bodily resurrection, they believe Jesus received a new "spiritual" body, immaterial but able to appear solid. They never really explain what happened to Jesus' earthly body when He received a "spiritual" body, but they do not believe that His earthly body was raised from the dead. It's a serious error, as it strikes at the core of Christian belief. It is heresy, pure and simple. The Bible clearly teaches Jesus' physical resurrection, and a flesh and bone physical body for the Risen Lord. It is an incorruptible, supernatural, glorified, flesh and bone spiritual body, the same kind as Christians will receive at the Lord's Second Coming. This is not the only doctrine that the Armstrongites (and their offshoots, including the United Church of God) are wrong about, they hold heretical views on other doctrines too. See the thread "Is Satan Bound Today" for more complete exposition on this subject (chiefly the last 1000 posts, more or less)
Hope that helps!
Ethan: Thanks for your comments, fishtank. They are appreciated.
Regarding your question, first, nobdysfool's comments were correct regarding the Armstrongism/United Church of God teaching on the "resurrection."
I'll provide a few cites from the primary materials which the United Church of God derives its religious traditions from, a man that Armstrongites consider to be "the end-time Elijah," and "the only man in 1,850 years to understand the Bible," and of course, "the only man to have preached the Gospel in 1,850 years."
These claims need to be kept in mind when evaluating the statements of Herbert W. Armstrong; his writings are not considered to be those of a person they consider a great Biblical expositor, or even the greatest Biblical theologian in Church history.
No, no...that is not the situation in any sense. They consider Herbert W. Armstrong to have been an apostle; they consider him to have been inspired of God; they consider his teachings to be absolutely necessary to understand "the truth" (Armstrong, Mystery of the Ages, p. xii).; they hold him to be the only man in 1,850 years to have known, let alone preached, "the gospel"; Armstrong was the one that "raised up the Church" in "our generation" (Herbert Armstrong, Ministerial Conference transcript, May 6, 1974, p. 9).
Sound familiar? It should.
Joseph Smith made essentially the same claim (Mormons). So did Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science). And Charles Taze Russell (Jehovah's Witnesses; Adventist off-shoot). And David Koresh (Branch Davidians; Adventist off-shoot). The message is basically the same in regard to the foundational premise of all the modern American cults:
"the entire Christian faith has been wrong and of Satan for the past 2,000 years—all of it—now God is going to use me [fill in your favorite cult leader name] to make everything right again."
This was believed by the Worldwide Church of God for years after the death of Armstrong in 1986. As late as 1991 the Worldwide Church of God stated:
"Strange to say, almost everyone for these past 19 centuries has been looking in the wrong place for the Church that Jesus built. A great gap lies between the practices of the apostolic Church Jesus founded and those of today's mainstream Christianity" (No author cited in the article, The Plain Truth. March 1991), p. 8
Of course, the Plain Truth article goes on to reveal the "big surprise" of exactly where the Church that Jesus built can be found. Can you guess? It's the Worldwide Church of God! Since the doctrinal upheavals of the mid-1990s the United Church of God (and other claimants to the throne) have perpetuated the doctrines and foundational premises of Armstrongism.
The United Church of God is dedicated to the teachings of Armstrongism as divine truth and mimicks his works wherever possible (this has been conclusively documented).
The leadership of the organization is fully aware of the large body of documented facts regarding Armstrong's false doctrines, false prophecies, the scandals due to Armstrong's many moral failings, the legal scandals, the scandals regarding his remarriage and divorce, the scandals involving incest, alcoholism, etc., and seeks to not make this connection apparent to the general public for PR purposes.
You should also keep this in mind when interacting with them. As you may recall DouglasKC at first attempted to disavow any real knowledge of Armstrong and tried to distance his doctrines from those of Armstrong. This is not by happenstance.
When a baptized member of the United Church of God makes such assertions, he or she is lying to you. Now, people get bent out of shape these days when someone says something is a lie. But Scripture says no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21).
Other Armstrongism spin-offs, such as the Global Church of God, at least make no bones about it—Herbert Armstrong "is the man."
Is Armstrong viewed as someone to be questioned in regard to doctrinal matters? Is Scripture the sole and final authority or is what Armstrong says Scripture teaches the actual final authority? Is critical thinking and questioning of Armstrong's central doctrines encouraged and tolerated or is any thinking critical of Armstrong's doctrine equated with sin?
"That UNIVERSAL sin of REBELLION (raising issues, thinking, and reasoning) plunged the whole earth into physical chaos, confusion and utter DARKNESS" (Herbert W. Armstrong, Dear Brethren Letter. 1974).
It is important to provide the Biblical teaching concerning such men as Armstrong, whether they should be given any heed at all:
"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' "You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him" (Deut. 18:20-22).
Good advice from Moses. And it should be made clear that I personally do not think that a person that sincerely makes a false prophecy is to be automatically castigated and forever shunned. People make mistakes. William Miller, for example, made false prophecies and repented of them and admitted it was error to even attempt it.
Herbert Armstrong—in contrast—made a career out of making false prophecies for decades. His entire organization was built upon his false prophetic claims.
Herbert Armstrong's self claim regarding the source of his statements—did he simply offer personal theories of possible prophetic sections of Scripture? Or did he claim to have been speaking by the direct inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ?:
"The 'Day of the Eternal' a time foretold in more than thirty prophecies is going to strike between 5 and 10 years from now! You will know, then, how REAL it is. You will wish, then, you had heeded. I am not writing foolishly, but very soberly, ON AUTHORITY of the living Christ!" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. February 1967. repeated use of upper case in the original), p. 47.
A moment of indescretion on the part of Armstrong?
"No evidence needs to be produced that the living Christ, Head of the Church of God, called and chose me to be his instrument which he has used in raising up and guiding His Church of this generation" (Herbert Armstrong, Ministerial Conference transcript. May 4, 1974), p. 9.
Herbert's statements regarding those that claim to receive callings from God:
"God's true servants are not called by weird dreams and visions which God keeps hidden from His already - called and ordained officers of the Church" (Herbert Armstrong, The Plain Truth. October 1958, emphasis mine), p. 16.
But, of course, Armstrong either forgot he wrote that in 1958, or he exempted himself:
"The first call to God's ministry came while we were living in the single room in Mrs. Brookhart's apartment. But, neither of us recognized it then. One night my wife had a dream so vivid and impressive it overwhelmed and shook her tremendously" (Herbert Armstrong, Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong. 1967 edition), p. 207.
The "best" responses I have ever received in approximately ten years of researching the Armstrong religion is that "no one's perfect! others have made false prophecies too!"
That this red herring has nothing to do with the track record of false prophecies, false doctrines and sordid life of Herbert Armstrong seems to "not compute" in the grid of Armstrong's diehard devotees.
Armstrong speaks:
"The year 1936 will see the end of the Times of the Gentiles.... we may expect the present worldwide depression, time of trouble and fear of war to continue until the year 1936!... quickly after that time, we may expect to see the heavenly signs of the sun and moon becoming dark, the stars falling.... which shall be followed by the 'Day of the Lord."' (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth June-July 1934), p. 5.
"Mussolini and the Pope will hatch up an idea between them of setting up a world headquarters at JERUSALEM-and so Mussolini's armies will enter into Palestine (Daniel 11:41), and eventually will capture just half of the city of Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:2)" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. March 1938), p. 8.
"The Italians will capture both Palestine and Egypt." (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. August-Sept. 1940).
"That is NOT a message to ancient Israel-but to OUR NATIONS of TODAY. The 'Day of the Eternal'-a time foretold in more than thirty prophecies-is going to strike between 5 and 10 years from now!" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Feb. 1967), p. 47.
Herbert Armstrong:
"For some years I worked in cooperation with the Church of God...I never joined them-never became one of their members" (Herbert Armstrong, Dear Members Letter, May 2, 1974), p. 2.
Church of God (7th day):
"Mr. Armstrong was a minister of the Church of God (7th Day)" (David M. Kauer, secretary-treasurer of the Church of God (7th day), Denver office, in a letter to B. R. Guillory, dated March 19, 1974).
Herbert Armstrong:
"I received no salary or remuneration of any kind from either the Salem or Stanberry organization. The story that I went out from them...is 100% false! I was never even a member of them" (Dear Members Letter. May 2, 1974), p. 4.
Church of God (7th day):
"It is time consuming to go through old records. However, in our ledger we find that Mr. Armstrong received pay as late as March 1937" (Chris W. Royer of the Church of God (7th Day), Salem, West Virginia office, in a letter to Bill Hughes, dated July 22, 1976).
So what do they believe about the "resurrection"? (in quotes because they completely misdefine the word itself in its normal grammatical-historical context; the word has always meant the raising of the body from the grave when being used in a Biblical context).
Armstrongism—including the United Church of God—denies the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ and instead teach a doctrine of a type of reincarnation; Armstrongism completely rejects that the Man Jesus Christ was raised bodily from the grave, and repudiates in direct terms that He had (and has) a body of flesh in any manner (contra Luke 24:37-39).
"Now notice carefully God the Father did not cause Jesus Christ to get back into the body which had died. Nowhere does the Scripture say He was alive or that God had Him get back into the human body that had died and was now resurrected" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963), p. 10.
Contra Luke:
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).
According to Armstrongism, He was not raised from the grave but was recreated. He ceased to exist and His body was "dissolved"—this is directly lifted from the Jehovah's Witnesses; no longer was there any Incarnation of God as Man—it was only a temporary thing to Armstrongism. This, as has been documented from the epistles of John, is the spirit of antichrist, and is "another jesus" whom neither the apostles or the faith once for all time delivered (Jude 3) has ever preached.
Moreover, it should be noted that even Armstrong's view of the "temporary incarnation" was not really an incarnation at all and was a basterdized version of the Biblical doctrine. Armstrong taught that Jesus Christ, in the "incarnation," ceased to be actual Deity. He was only "god" in His "memory" of existing prior to the Incarnation.
Armstrongism not only teaches that He just a man, but He was a man with a sinful nature. Armstrong had no conception whatsoever of Christ having a perfect, sinless human nature (as did Adam before the Fall—hence one of the reasons Jesus is called the "Second Adam" in Scripture). The descending pattern of Armstrong's Christology is readily apparent—Armstrong wanted nothing to do with the Jesus Christ of the Bible.
"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12."The only difference between Jesus and any other human is that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Ibid. emphasis Armstrong's).
As Walter Martin noted:
The Worldwide Church of God does indeed honor Christ with its lips, but in the cold analytical dawn of Biblical examination and analysis, there can be little doubt that its heart is far from Him" (Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults. Minn: Bethany House, 1985), p. 336.
Herbert Armstrong took his teaching on the "resurrection" of Christ directly from the Jehovah's Witnesses, who in turn derived it from Greek paganism and gnosticism.
They view the very notion of a bodily Resurrection to be repugnant; the body of flesh is not something to be redeemed and raised but is something to be discarded as undesirable and to be a polluting element. This is in line with their teaching that men may "become God as God is God." Being a creature is something to be shunned as not "good enough" (Gen. 3:1-4ff).
As previously documented, the category of Armstrong's false view:
The pagan Celsus wrote:
"The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods" (cited in Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984), p. 73.
Likewise, Plato viewed the ideal for man is the end of "corporeal defilement" and an existence as wholly spirit (documented in Murray Harris, Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 116.
The Biblical record is explicitly clear:
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).
The Incarnation of God the Son was (and is) real. Jesus Christ, as the Son of Man, was truly and literally raised bodily from the grave. And because He, as the Son of Man, was raised bodily from the grave, we have the promise of the redemption of the entire human person, the complete victory over sin and death.
Ethan, another excellent post, exposing the heresy of Armstrong and his followers.
I'll get to how accurate Ethan is on my beliefs in a bit.
I'm also going to get to Ethan's points on the resurrection (which consists of one piece of scripture after you strip out his Armstrong tirades). But first I'm going to start off by questioning some of the quotes from Armstrong that Ethan uses to support his post.
Ethan, I borrowed a CD from a fellow church member last night. This CD contains over 1600 documents that Armstrong authored, including Plain Truth articles dating as far back as the 50's.
In addition I researched and found several websites that have Armstrong writings on it.
You attributed this quote to Armstrong:
"Now notice carefully God the Father did not cause Jesus Christ to get back into the body which had died. Nowhere does the Scripture say He was alive or that God had Him get back into the human body that had died and was now resurrected" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963), p. 10.
I did an intensive search tonight. Nowhere could I found this quote in it's entirety. I did find one article in which the two sentences that make up the quote appear, listed here and entitled "Was Jesus Dead?". It was written, according to the article, circa 1955.
It's important to note that the two sentences in the "quote" are actually separated by 3 full paragraphs of material that serve to link and clarify the sentences together.
I did find this quote in it's entirety during an internet search on exactly two sites, both of which were anti "Armstrongite" and both of which used this exact same "quote" to explain their position.
My question to you is this: Do you have a scanned page from the Plain Truth magazine you say this comes from? Or do you acknowledge that this quote is bastardized and pulled out of context from a different article, in a different year?
Quote 2:
"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12.
You assert also that this quote comes from a Plain Truth Magazine from November 1963. I can't find it on the CD. I can't find it on the internet in any Armstrong Literature. I did do a search on Google in which I pasted your quote in it's entirety and searched. I got exactly two hits, both from an article entitled "Herbert W. Armstrong and the WorldWide Church of God (A Modern False Prophet and his Cult)" written by a Don Thompson.
I ask you again: Do you have a scanned image of this article with the quote? Or did you cut and paste it from this article in it's entirety with no evidence that it actually exists?
I think this is fairly important as it pertains to your basic honesty and integrity when it comes to your postings. Interested to hear your response. Thanks.
Doug, do you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ?
I hat tot be rude, but this is the third time I've asked. I'm just curious, that's all.
Ethan: Perhaps what you consider "intensive" is actually half-assed to someone of better ability. Ever consider that possibility?
DouglasKC continues on his roll: "My question to you is this: Do you have a scanned page from the Plain Truth magazine
Ethan: Nope.
DouglasKC keeps going: "you say this comes from?"
Ethan: Not only do "I say" it comes from The Plain Truth April 1963 issue, it really does. Go figure.
DouglasKC winding up to stick his foot in his mouth: "Or do you acknowledge that this quote is bastardized and pulled out of context from a different article, in a different year?"
Ethan: Now why would I acknowledge such a thing? You know Douglas, a liar always feels like he's being lied to. Your conscience is getting to you. It didn't come from a different article than I cited nor did it come from a different year. It came from The Plain Truth April 1963 issue.
DouglasKC not knowing when he is out of line: "I think this is fairly important as it pertains to your basic honesty and integrity when it comes to your postings"
DouglasKC has called into question — yet again — my "integrity." That's a twist. Now, what I write must be due to a lack of integrity and, of course, what I write must be the result of the fact that I am just stupid. Sure, I may have some "book learning" but none of that adds up to a hill of beans if it goes against Armstrongism. If I were decent, and had any real intelligence, I'd embrace Armstrongism for the "truth" that it obviously is. See the logic of it all?
Let's be clear on this, even Dr. Robert Gundry, we were informed by DouglasKC, is dead wrong on the meaning, usage, and context of the Greek Soma in the New Testament!
Think about that.
Then think about this: DouglasKC can't read NT Greek, knows nothing of the functions of Greek prepositions, knows nothing about the subtle distinctions between Greek tenses, etc., yet he has the ability to determine and pronounce that the definitive work on the subject, Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1976), is not simply "wrong" but is dead wrong.
On what basis does he assert this? Quite simple: Dr. Gundry repudiates the Armstrongism doctrine and denial of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ergo, Dr. Gundry is dead wrong. If Dr. Gundry had any brains and "really" knew what he was talking about he'd embrace and endorse the Armstrongism doctrine. With all of his advanced education and scholarly work he still doesn't "really" understand what the Greek text actually says. Indeed, persons that are illiterate in Greek "understand" what the Greek text "really" means better than Dr. Gundry (DouglasKC, for example).
Why? Dr. Gundry obviously doesn't "really believe" the Bible and he has no integrity. The fact that he is a conservative, Bible-believing scholar and devout Christian is immaterial. He doesn't "really believe" the Bible. If he "really believed" the Bible he'd embrace Armstrongism, even though all of the facts of the Greek text are against it. Nice and neat.
Sound a little crazy? It is.
"2. Polarized World View - The group is all that is good; everything outside is bad" (Cults, What Parents Should Know. American Family Federation), pp. 21-22. cited in Craig Branch, Watchman Expositor. vol. 10, No. 4, 1993."Contradictory facts can be denied in several ways: on the grounds of face absurdity ("it is absurd on the face of it"), "chance," "the exception that proves the rule," "the true facts are not accessible, and the only available sources of information are biased" (Dr. Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind.), p. 37.
A rushed search on "Google" and "Yahoo" is not the stuff of serious scholarly research, Douglas. I conduct serious, substantive research based upon the primary sources and scholarly secondary materials. I don't put in searches on "Google" (or whatever search engine), pick the quotes I like from fringe sources and then proceed. That is your methodology — it isn't mine. Of course, in and of itself there is nothing wrong with using the Internet to find sources discerningly and utilizing them as support material, etc., but that is not what you are doing in any legitimate sense. You're projecting your incompetencies and unethical premises onto others.
Regarding Douglas' "CD"—if it exists and if he actually did read its content carefully—I have no way to verify the accuracy of its content nor the qualifications of the person or persons that put it together, or their ability to compile documentation. That it is a felony violation of copyrighted material also doesn't speak well for the ethical orientation of his source; it is one thing to cite brief passages for academic and documentary purposes, with proper citation; it is a wholly other category to compile years of magazine issues on an unauthorized, homemade CD and then distribute it. It is even more serious when one considers that flags have been raised indicating that the material has been altered.
The citation I provided from The Plain Truth April 1963 issue comes from ...
The Plain Truth April 1963 issue
... beat-up and yellowed though it may be. It really exists and I really have it next to me on my desk — not a "scan" or an unauthorized, bootleg CD put together by Armstrongites but the Real McCoy itself. In that issue of The Plain Truth it really says:
"Now notice carefully God the Father did not cause Jesus Christ to get back into the body which had died. Nowhere does the Scripture say He was alive or that God had Him get back into the human body that had died and was now resurrected" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963), p. 10.
Hmmm. Anyone else have the April 1963 issue of The Plain Truth to substantiate this for, as is obvious, I have no "integrity."
From: "Paul Kroll" Paul.Kroll@wcg.org To: "Ethan North" ethan_north@*******.*** Subject: RE: Plain Truth reference Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 08:06:59 -0800 Message-ID: <000701c2b7f9$257a31a0$2104020a@hq.wcg.org> Return-Path: Paul.Kroll@wcg.org Greetings Ethan, The citation you quoted is from the article "Why Christ Died -- and Rose Again!" It appeared in the April 1963 Plain Truth magazine. The first part of the quote is found on page 10: "Now notice carefully God the Father did not cause Jesus Christ to get back into the body which had died...." The second part of the quote is found 6 paragraphs later on page 40: "Nowhere does the Scripture say He was alive and active, or that God had Him get back into the human body that had died and was now resurrected." I hope this information is sufficient for your needs. Paul Kroll Personal Correspondence
Hmmm...you would think the Worlwide Church of God would know what is and isn't in their own magazine.
Looks like Herbert Armstrong did write such things and it looks like he wrote them specifically in The Plain Truth magazine, April 1963 issue. Now to be fair, I didn't write the ending page reference just the starting page reference. Most reasonable persons would concur that I provided reasonable documentation, the author, magazine title, issue, and beginning page of the reference was accurately cited. The cite provided was Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963, p. 10. And it stands.
As is common with the cults, the distinct possibility exists that Douglas' unauthorized, bootleg CD was "edited" to remove the more overt anti-christ statements. It is conclusive — as corroborated directly by the Worldwide Church of God itself — that the statement of Armstrong is, in point of fact, cited directly from the April 1963 issue of The Plain Truth and I did not "make it up" or "copy and paste" it from a fraudulent source.
Analogous to this, the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses)—in a lame attempt at damage control—actually have available "copies" of older publications, except these "copies" that are presently available have been altered in order to cover-up the numerous false prophecies offered by the Jehovah's Witnesses. When one compares an actual edition and compare it with the newer versions, the editing is quite obvious.
And, of course, the distinct possiblity exists that Douglas can't conduct reliable, serious research.
I have engaged in serious research of the Armstrong religion for almost ten years, and I am the director of education and apologetics of my local church. I was involved as a research assistant during the doctrinal upheavels of the Worldwide Church of God and conducted numerous hours of documentation verification and historical research of the Armstrong cult.
I have in my personal research library scores of documents, WCG inter-office memos, letters, "Dear Co-Workers" letters, etc., from the Armstrong-era WCG. I also have a box that contains the entire Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course. I have years of issues of The Good News magazine; I have decades of issues of the Plain Truth. I have a shelf packed with audio cassettes of the "World Tomorrow" radio broadcast. I have a shelf packed with VHS tapes of the "World Tomorrow" TV shows ("this is Herbert W. Armstrong saying, "Goodbye Friends"); I have the two-volume Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong [Armstrong didn't write his "Autobiography"—even that was a sham]. I have every single book, booklet, pamphlet, etc., that was available from 1972 to 1993. I have numerous publications of the WCG dating before 1972, as well as numerous publications post-dating 1993.
My statements are well-documented, accurate, and honest. The statements are in their proper context, and every single doctrinal position attributed to Armstrong is correct.
Armstrongism denies the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ and denies that the Man, Jesus Christ, was raised bodily from the grave in a body of flesh and bone. This is a fact. No Armstrongite that had any integrity would attempt to side-step this fact or waffle his way out of it. And certainly no decent human being would accuse someone of lying on a public forum when they know full well that what I have written and documented from the primary sources is accurate and representative of Armstrongism.
The cognitive dissonance Douglas exhibits is extreme, and he has displayed repeatedly that he has no hesitation to lie, misrepresent and accuse others falsely in his desire to promote and defend his Armstrongism. The documenation has been offered, it is accurate and the honest, reasonable, sane person can readily recognize these facts. Douglas has no case; he shames himself.
I have provided the documenation from the primary sources. The documentation has been corroborated by the Worldwide Church of God itself as a citation of The Plain Truth April 1963 issue. The documentation has likewise been corroborated by Phillip Arnn of Watchman Fellowship, a respected, professional cult researcher.
The documentation — being such an overt and classic example of Armstrong's denial of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ — has also been corroborated and likewise utilized in such recognized sources as Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985, 1992), p. 329; Phillip Arnn, Watchman Expositor "Worldwide Church of God Profile"; and Josh McDowell, Don Stewart, Kurt Van Goden, The Deceivers—What Cults Believe, How They Lure Followers (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992), p. 290.
They're all lying, are unethical and do not have integrity, hey Douglas? Dr. Walter Martin, Phillip Arnn, Josh McDowell, Don Stewart, Kurt Van Goden — all fabricated this issue of the Plain Truth to make-up a doctrine Armstrong never taught, even though the doctrine was a major teaching of Armstrong and any former Armstrongite with an ounce of integrity can verify this fact? The Worldwide Church of God "made up" this documentation too and corroborated it, just to get in on the "fun," Douglas?
Douglas has been conclusively shown to be ignorant of Biblical theology, history, grammar, exegesis, and sadly, to have been shown to be completely dishonest and shifty when it came to his own beliefs and the source of those beliefs. He further shamed himself by falsely accusing others, without knowing what he's talking about or conducting serious, substantive research apart from using a search engine on the Internet (as if that is a substitute for serious research with the actual documents), all in a most unethical and immoral manner.
Douglas, you stated that the definitive work of Dr. Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1976) was dead wrong on the meaning, context and usage of the Greek Soma ("body") in the New Testament. I have asked you and I ask you again, if I handed you the NA27 and you had nothing but the NA27, without any outside reference of any kind, could you read the Gospel of John?
Just to be clear, you are admitting here that you pulled two sentences (six paragraphs apart) out of the article, juxtaposed them, and presented them as one statement? Without any sort of context or explanation? If so, that is intellectually dishonest.
"Now, what I write must be due to a lack of integrity and, of course, what I write must be the result of the fact that I am just stupid."
29 posted on 01/09/2003 11:20 AM CST by EthanNorth
Hey, pulling quotes out of context can be fun!
Ethan: Red herring and a dishonest one at that. Your fellow Armstrongite falsely accused me of fabricating the documentation and asserted that I did not derive the source from The Plain Truth April 1963 issue. His false accusation and error was conclusively established.
I conclusively documented that he did bear false witness against me and that I did, in point of fact, provide accurate documentation. Indeed, as is the typical case, I am the only person to ever provide formal documentation for my sources, and then I am attacked for any slight oversight--real or perceived--because you and your fellow Armstrongite have no factual, substantive response.
So, I was accused of fabricating and/or taking the documentation from other sources and not The Plain Truth April 1963 issue, when in fact I most definitely did. Moreover, the quotes are most definitely in context and quite to the point of Armstrong's denial of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Man of flesh and bone. They are contextually related, they come from the precise issue of The Plain Truth I stated (Douglas' breaking of the Ten Commandments and falsely accusing me notwithstanding), and I provided the proper documentation that any reasonable, literate person could read, go to the stacks of any library where the magazine was shelved, look up the piece and find the article.
Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963, p. 10. It stands.
I await his apology, which I realize is probably not forthcoming.
angelo: "Hey, pulling quotes out of context can be fun!"
Ethan: I await the scholarly response from either you or your fellow Armstrongite demonstrating that I have in fact misrepresented the views of Armstrong and that he did teach that Jesus Christ was bodily Resurrected as a flesh and bone Man.
Good luck. You will be venturing on an excercise in futility.
[quoting my citation of the Armstrong piece] "Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12.
Ethan: I definitely provided that cite.
DouglasKC: "You assert also that this quote comes from a Plain Truth Magazine from November 1963."
Ethan: I not only assert it, it actually does come from the The Plain Truth, November 1963 issue. No kidding.
DouglasKC: "I can't find it on the CD."
Ethan: Then I'd have to say that either your search abilities or the compilation abilities of the makers of your CD are suffering from an acute case of clinical Half-Assism.
DouglasKC: "I can't find it on the internet in any Armstrong Literature"
Ethan: Ever use an actual library?
DouglasKC: "I did do a search on Google"
Ethan: Didn't I tell you that is not the stuff of serious academic research?
DouglasKC: "I ask you again: Do you have a scanned image of this article with the quote? Or did you cut and paste it from this article in it's entirety with no evidence that it actually exists?"
Ethan: The only thing that has "no evidence that it actually exists" is your thinking ability. Nothing else. And remember, "it's" is not a possessive, it's a contraction of "it" and "is."
The citation I provided:
"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12.
It not only exists, but I have it right here on my desk.
Anyone else have The Plain Truth November 1963 issue to corroborate my very suspicious claim?
From: "Paul Kroll" Paul.Kroll@wcg.org To: "Ethan North" ethan_north@*******.*** Subject: RE: Plain Truth, Nov. 1963 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:09:02 -0800 Message-ID: 000701c2b80a$312e5920$2104020a@hq.wcg.org Ethan, The sentence you quoted was on page 12 of the November 1963 Plain Truth magazine. The title of the article was "Millions Do Not Know What Christ Really was!" Paul Kroll
The article exists. It was written by Herbert W. Armstrong. Exactly as I stated. It was published in The Plain Truth. Exactly as I stated. It was published in the November 1963 issue. Exactly as I stated. The exact sentence appears on page 12. I cited pages 11-12 of the piece.
Douglas, you have no moral restraint and you do not have the ability to undertake any worthwhile or meaningful research on any reasonable level.
Did you ever consider the distinct possibility that the reason you accept the teachings of the Armstrong splinter group, the United Church of God, is that you do not have the cognitive abilities to critically evaluate the doctrinal data in a meaningful manner?
And I am not going to ask again if you have the ability to read the Gospel of John using the NA27 and only the NA27. The answer is painfully obvious.
Now, on exactly what factual basis did you conclude that Dr. Gundry's definitive work on the subject, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1976), is dead wrong on the subject? Since you can't read NT Greek I am curious as to what means of divination this came to you.
I think the ones who are guilty of intellectual dishonesty have exposed themselves.
They have proven that they aren't really interested in the truth of the matter under discussion, but instead, because they hate the message, they have attacked the messenger in hopes of influencing mentalities incapable of critical thought to "their side".
This is a new tactic for those who hate the truth???
Not hardly:
"And as he said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to assail him vehemently, and to cross-examine him about many things."
"Lying in wait for him, and SEEKING TO CATCH HIM IN SOMETHING HE MIGHT SAY, THAT THEY MIGHT ACCUSE HIM." [Luke 11:53-54]
JESUS: "If the world hates you, you know it hated me BEFORE it hated you." [John15:18]
It's nothing new, it comes with the territory.
That remains to be seen.
Your fellow Armstrongite
WRONG! I am not even a Christian; I am Jewish. Your leaping to this conclusion doesn't bode well for your concern for accuracy...
falsely accused me of fabricating the documentation and asserted that I did not derive the source from The Plain Truth April 1963 issue. His false accusation and error was conclusively established.
None of this is relevent to my point. The point in question is whether "you pulled two sentences (six paragraphs apart) out of the article, juxtaposed them, and presented them as one statement". Either you did or you didn't.
and that I did, in point of fact, provide accurate documentation.
You have a very interesting definition of "accurate documentation". I saw something just yesterday that seems particularly suitable here:
Judas went and hanged himself. Go and do likewise.
Is this an accurate citation of the gospel?
Thank you. It is. I asked if you had a scanned page of article. You did not. As I thought and as you yourself admitted, you bastardized the quote by omitting at least 6 paragraphs from between the first sentence and the last sentence.
And you have yet to address the other quote. I'm waiting on that.
Now to be fair, I didn't write the ending page reference just the starting page reference. Most reasonable persons would concur that I provided reasonable documentation,
Most people would assume that when you directly quote someone that you have not fabricated a quote by putting two sentences together that weren't together in the first place and omit 6 entire paragraphs of material between.
That's as dishonest as it gets. Using your method I could make Abraham Lincoln say:
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. The government will not assail YOU. - Abraham Lincoln, Inaugeral Address, March 4, 1961.
See there Ethan? Using your method of "quoting" I have made it look like Abraham Lincoln was all for the breakup of the Union.
It's not that I'm questioning your honesty, I've just learned that you will apparently say things that you think are true without really trying to find out if they're true or not. For example, your wrong definition of perfect participle as it applied to 1 John 4:2 is outlined in detail here.
These kinds of things go beyond differing interpretations of scripture.
Wrong analogy.
But then you know that.
And so do those capable of critical thinking.
Back at ya...
Oh this is rich. After an entire thread where I've been attacked personally and responded with restraint you're saying I've attacked Ethan when I ask for proof that a quote is really a quote? Right.
Are you deliberately trying to fool people or are you, too, just incapable of critical thought?
You are misrepresenting Ethan and attempting to make it appear as if his "method of quoting" made it look like he was misrepresenting what Armstrong believed about the bodily resurrection.
You must be convinced that there are a lot of numbskulls reading this thread who are incapable off seeing through your tactics.
Are you stupid or just blind? Ethan used a bad quote. He got caught. If he's going to use quotes to support his assertations I don't think it's asking to much that they be accurate quotes.
According to Herbert W. Armstrong, the original Church kept some of the truth but eventually lost many parts of it. He wrote, "At least 18 basic and essential truths have been restored to the True Church since" the year 1933 (Mystery of the Ages, Dodd & Mead, 1985, p. 251).
2. Purpose of God He immediately continued with, "And the second thing to be restored is the PURPOSE of God. And the gospel has to do with that. That God IS reproducing us and that MAN CAN BECOME God! No other Church on earth believes that, brethren. And now let me tell you, I'm going to reveal to you, now, things that have been restored in this Church. Let me tell you, THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN MINISTERS IN THIS CHURCH IN HIGH OFFICE, HAVE GONE OUT AND NOW ARE SAYING, AND SAYING PUBLICLY, THAT WE ARE DEPARTING FROM THE FAITH AND THAT WE ARE GOING FARTHER AND FARTHER INTO ERROR BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE THE TRUTHS THAT GOD HAS BEEN RESTORING INTO THE CHURCH. God's purpose is that He's reproducing Himself and that we, ultimately, become God."
Of course not. And that's just the point. They are accurate quotes. They are Armstrong's own words stating what he (like you, and like angelo), believe about the bodily resurrection of Christ.
The "quotes" you and angelo presented misrepresented the beliefs of the people you were quoting, and then you attempted to equate what you did with Ethan's honest quotes.
You hung yourselves with your own rope. LOL
Would you care to explain how?
Ethan claimed something was a quote, when it demonstrably and admittedly was not. That is intellectually dishonest.
Ethan: You're a liar. You accused me of making up the quote altogether from different articles from different years. This is a fact.
The reasonable person can easily see this is the case. In point of fact, the citation was provided from The Plain Truth issue as I precisely stated. (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963).
The two sentences were from the same article, from the same issue, from the same author, and were used in a contextual and honest manner. I did not, in any way, shape or form, misrepresent the doctrinal belief of Herbert Armstrong. You are attempting to poison the well and stir up a hornet's nest by making the impression that I misrepresent his views, when I did not in any sense.
He denied the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of the Man, Jesus Christ, precisely as my documentation established. Indeed, Armstrong was proud of the fact and asserted this doctrine repeatedly.
If you claim I have misrepresented the views of Herbert Armstrong, then by all means establish from his materials that he believed in and taught the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of the Man, Jesus Christ.
If you cannot do this then my statement stands and (a) my documentation is from Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. April 1963, which you denied existed and denied could be found because you couldn't find it on your bootleg CD; and (b) I presented the view of Armstrong regarding the Resurrection in an accurate manner and I did not misrepresent his view in the least.
Establish that Herbert W. Armstrong taught and believed in the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of the Man, Jesus Christ. Please, by all means do so and establish how I have "misrepresented" his views. Show from his materials that he taught the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Good luck.
Otherwise, your much ado is nothing more than a red herring to detract from the fact that I didn't "make up" the article in The Plain Truth (April 1963) as you initially and without any factual basis asserted, and that I did in fact quite accurately present the view of Armstrong concerning his denial of the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
DouglasKC: "And you have yet to address the other quote. I'm waiting on that."
Ethan: "I'm waiting on that."?? Who do you think you are? I'm still waiting for your statement detailing the factual basis upon which you critiqued Dr. Robert Gundry's definitive work, Soma in Biblical Theolgoy (Cambridge University Press, 1976) to be dead wrong. I love it when those illiterate of the Greek text explain how experts in the Greek text are dead wrong.
And post 35 certainly exists.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/817409/posts?page=35#35
And I want the honest reader to again notice, DouglasKC is not taking umbrage with my use of the citation — he is denying that it exists at all. The reasonable person can see this is the case. Here it is:
DouglasKC: "Quote 2:"
[quoting my citation of the Armstrong piece] "Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12.
Ethan: I definitely provided that cite.
DouglasKC: "You assert also that this quote comes from a Plain Truth Magazine from November 1963."
Ethan: I not only assert it, it actually does come from the The Plain Truth, November 1963 issue. No kidding.
DouglasKC: "I can't find it on the CD."
Ethan: Then I'd have to say that either your search abilities or the compilation abilities of the makers of your CD are suffering from an acute case of clinical Half-Assism.
DouglasKC: "I can't find it on the internet in any Armstrong Literature"
Ethan: Ever use an actual library?
DouglasKC: "I did do a search on Google"
Ethan: Didn't I tell you that is not the stuff of serious academic research?
DouglasKC: "I ask you again: Do you have a scanned image of this article with the quote? Or did you cut and paste it from this article in it's entirety with no evidence that it actually exists?"
Ethan: The only thing that has "no evidence that it actually exists" is your thinking ability. Nothing else. And remember, "it's" is not a possessive, it's a contraction of "it" and "is."
The citation I provided:
"Yes, Jesus had sinful flesh—human nature" (Herbert W. Armstrong, The Plain Truth. Nov. 1963, emphasis Armstrong's), pp. 11-12.
It not only exists, but I have it right here on my desk.
Anyone else have The Plain Truth November 1963 issue to corroborate my very suspicious claim?
From: "Paul Kroll" Paul.Kroll@wcg.org To: "Ethan North" ethan_north@*******.*** Subject: RE: Plain Truth, Nov. 1963 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 10:09:02 -0800 Message-ID: 000701c2b80a$312e5920$2104020a@hq.wcg.org Ethan, The sentence you quoted was on page 12 of the November 1963 Plain Truth magazine. The title of the article was "Millions Do Not Know What Christ Really was!" Paul Kroll
The article exists. It was written by Herbert W. Armstrong. Exactly as I stated. It was published in The Plain Truth. Exactly as I stated. It was published in the November 1963 issue. Exactly as I stated. The exact sentence appears on page 12. I cited pages 11-12 of the piece.
Douglas, you have no moral restraint and you do not have the ability to undertake any worthwhile or meaningful research on any reasonable level.
Did you ever consider the distinct possibility that the reason you accept the teachings of the Armstrong splinter group, the United Church of God, is that you do not have the cognitive abilities to critically evaluate the doctrinal data in a meaningful manner?
And I am not going to ask again if you have the ability to read the Gospel of John using the NA27 and only the NA27. The answer is painfully obvious.
Now, on exactly what factual basis did you conclude that Dr. Gundry's definitive work on the subject, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1976), is dead wrong on the subject? Since you can't read NT Greek I am curious as to what means of divination this came to you.
End post 35.
DouglasKC: "For example, your wrong definition of perfect participle as it applied to 1 John 4:2 is outlined in detail here."
Ethan: Douglas, you are ignorant of the grammar and can't understand the usage of the perfect participle as found in the Greek text of the Johannine epistles, vis. 1 John. The perfect participle used in 1 John signifies a past completed fact with ongoing results. This is further established by John's second epistle (2 John 7) where he utilizes the present tense, thus communicating that Jesus Christ at that very moment, in heaven, had a body of flesh.
You simply can't understand the material and the actual meaning of the grammatical usage. This is purely an academic problem on your part wholly distinct from any theological considerations.
It really isn't a theoretial debate; it is what the passages teachs. Moreover, what may be termed the Locus Classicus of the subject stated in explicit terms reads as follows:
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).
It is the ancient teaching of Scripture,
"I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God" (Job 19:25-26).
And here is another dumby, Dr. Norman Geisler, that shares my "wrong definition" of the perfect participle as utilized in the text of 1 John. This dumby has the following credentials (B.A, Wheaton College; M.A, Wheaton Graduate School; Th.B, William Tyndale College; Ph.D, Loyola University; Assistant Professor of Bible and Apologetics at Detroit Bible College, 1963-66; Full-time Associate Professor of Philosophy at Trinity College, 1970-71; visiting Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1969-70; Chairman of Philosophy of Religion, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1970-79; Professor of Systematic Theology, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979-1988; Dean of Liberty Center for Research and Scholarship, Lynchburg, VA, 1989-91).
"A similar doctrinal deviation existed in the first century. John addressed it when he warned against those who deny that 'Jesus Christ has come [and remains] in the flesh' (1 John 4:2). The use of the perfect participle ("has come") implies that Jesus came in the flesh when John penned these words after the Resurrection" (Norman Geisler, "I Believe in the Resurrection of the Flesh," Christian Research Journal. Summer 1989), p. 22 (no "copying and pasting," I really have the Journal in front of me and I really typed it all out...)
The fact is that you did misrepresent your views and the doctrinal source of your religious tradition as coming from Armstrongism. This is a fact.
It is also a fact that you asserted I fabricated the Plain Truth articles, when it has been clearly established I didn't fabricate them. It is also a fact that you have asserted that I have misrepresented the view of Armstrong regarding his denial of the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of Jesus Christ, when I presented his view precisely and accurately.
The entire corpus of your "response" (it is nothing but a red herring) was (a) I fabricated the very existence of the Plain Truth articles in question and when it was established that you didn't know what you were talking about you (b) shifted gears and claimed I misrepresented Armstrong's views (I did not in any sense) because I cited the opening page of the article quote and didn't include the closing page, as if you adhere to any standard of reasonable documenation.
Provide the documenation that Herbert Armstrong believed in and taught the bodily, flesh and bone Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you can't do this, then try and muster up enough common decency and apologize for saying I have misrepresented his views on the resurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.