Skip to main content

The Reactivating of Christ’s Life Pattern (Resurrection)

 


The Watch Tower Society teaches that when Jesus died he went out of existence. It required Jehovah God to raise him because he was only in God’s memory:

Resurrection involves a reactivating of the life pattern of the individual, which life pattern God has retained in his memory.’ Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p.333

They also say Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, having no physical body. He simply materialised bodies to suit the occasion:

It is true that Jesus appeared in physical form to his disciples after his resurrection. But on certain occasions, why did they not at first recognise him?...Jesus evidently materialised bodies on these occasions, as angels had done in the past when appearing to humans. Disposing of Jesus’ physical body at the time of his resurrection presented no problem for God. Interestingly, although the physical body was not left by God in the tomb (evidently to strengthen the conviction of the disciples that Jesus had actually been raised), the linen cloths in which it had been wrapped were left there; yet, the resurrected Jesus always appeared fully clothed.’ Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp 217/8

Commenting on Luke 24:36-39, a key resurrection text, they write:

Humans cannot see spirit, so the disciples evidently thought they were seeing an apparition or a vision...Jesus assured them that he was no apparition; they could see his body of flesh and could touch him, feeling the bones; he also ate in their presence...Following his resurrection, Jesus did not always appear in the same body of flesh (perhaps to reinforce n their minds the fact that he was a spirit), and so he was not immediately recognisable even by his close associates. (John 20:14,15; 21:4-7) However, by his repeatedly appearing to them in materialised bodies...he strengthened their faith in the fact that he truly had been resurrected from the dead.’ Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp 334/335

Well, Yes...Evidently

This has to be one of the most confusing things I have ever read, and I used to be a Mormon. We will come to ‘proof-texts’ presently, but let’s see if we can unpack this jumble of guesses, surmises, and wild leaps of conjecture. I do wonder if they understand what ‘evidentially’ means. They offer no evidence as such, using the word as a synonym for ‘apparently’ or ‘it seems apparent.’ There is a lot of guesswork going on here.

Where does Scripture say our life pattern is retained in God’s memory? Having decided what they believe, i.e. when you’re dead you’re dead, they make up phrases and ideas not found in Scripture to explain the resurrection of something that no longer exists. There is a lot of guesswork here.

Jesus is resurrected a spirit, which presents a problem. How does Jesus convince the disciples he is the resurrected Christ? ‘Evidently’ he ‘materialises a body’ to fit the moment.See my hands and my feet,’ he says to them, ‘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 24:39

The evidence of his resurrection is his physicality, but this is manufactured evidence. He is not really a physical being at all, but a spirit. This then creates another problem; he wants them to know he is a spirit, but he has just presented his physical body as evidence to the contrary. Why is it important they know he is a spirit? That question is left hanging. So, what will he do?

Following his resurrection, Jesus did not always appear in the same body of flesh (perhaps to reinforce n their minds the fact that he was a spirit), and so he was not immediately recognisable even by his close associates.’

He appeared many times to his followers and I have this picture in my mind of yet another ‘stranger’ turning up, the disciples wondering who this might be, and one of them saying, ‘Oh, I think it’s Jesus again. I wish he wouldn’t keep doing that, we’re nervous enough about the Romans and the temple authorities without him turning up, a stranger in our midst, time and again.’

What about his dead body?

Disposing of Jesus’ physical body at the time of his resurrection presented no problem for God. (I am sure it wouldn’t have) Interestingly, although the physical body was not left by God in the tomb (evidently to strengthen the conviction of the disciples that Jesus had actually been raised) the linen cloths in which it had been wrapped were left there; yet, the resurrected Jesus always appeared fully clothed.’

Not only a new identity each time but a change of wardrobe! But Jesus was not buried in his day clothes, he was buried wrapped in linen with spices brought by Nicodemus (John 19:39-40). The winding sheets of his burial and the clothes they subsequently saw him wearing have nothing to do with each other.

Finally, we are told, ‘the physical body was not left by God in the tomb (evidently to strengthen the conviction of the disciples that Jesus had actually been raised)’ So…

The absence of a body in the tomb is evidence Jesus is risen – ‘evidently’ physically resurrected.

The evidence of ‘a body of flesh and bones’ reinforces this conviction, along with Jesus’ words, ‘a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have.’ Luke 24:39

The appearances of Jesus in different guises, however, are meant, in some obscure way, to convey the idea he is not physically resurrected. The disciples, nevertheless, are supposed to glean from this contradictory evidence that Jesus is a spirit, that they were right all along in that upper room, and Jesus hoodwinked them.

There is a wacky internal logic to this, I am sure, but in the cold light of day it makes no sense at all. I am now going to lie down in a darkened room. Next week we will look at proof-texts.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...