Posted on 01/05/2003 6:00:03 PM PST by EthanNorth
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.
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.