About

I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, I came to doubt my Witness beliefs, rejecting many of them, and the doctrinal autho...

Sunday, December 31, 2017

No Loopholes Allowed

No Loopholes Allowed
October 4th, 2017
[Edited: December 26th, 2017]

It is not uncommon to hear the claim that Witness leaders, presently the Governing Body, are false prophets (à la Deuteronomy 18). And this is not without basis. Indeed, I think it is true, though, to be sure the "Organization" and the "Governing Body" are ambivalent about how they present themselves: sometimes as speaking what God in some fashion communicates to them, sometimes offering what is merely their own sincere - and yet in some way (generally?) divinely guided - interpretation of prophecy or Scripture.

I was hesitant to come to this conclusion, because I could point to many places in the old Witness literature that showed that they eschewed prophetic status; and sometimes the supposed quotes that non-Witnesses would use to prove that they considered themselves inspired prophets seemed to have been misunderstood. However, I think there is good reason to think that, by their own words, the Governing Body and their predecessors - Russell, Rutherford and Knorr - considered themselves to be, or where considered to be, inspired by God to interpret prophecy (and doctrine). Demonstrating this claim will be the task of next's week post.

However - and this is not appreciated by many - it doesn't really matter if the Organization or its leaders are false prophets or not. Why? Because their record of failed predictions, whether considered as the product of divine guidance, inspiration or mere human conjecture, speak for themselves: they are no good at interpreting prophecy. At least, no better than anyone else. And this gives the lie to their Governing Body's claim to be God's unique spokesman as demonstrated by the various prophecies they say that they and their Organization fulfill. If they were wrong these numerous times before (and in substantial ways), why pay them credence now? They were just as confident before, and dead wrong.

And I'll repeat this observation again, for it is so important. Indeed, I recognized the strength of this point even before I realized that there was good reason to consider the Governing Body and their predecessors as false prophets The legitimacy of their movement and their Governing Body's putative doctrinal authority rest on the role they posit for themselves in the last days. For instance, the Governing Body - it is said - has doctrinal authority over God's people; we can know this because they fit that role as foretold in prophecy (as interpreted by them). But we know there is no good reason to trust that they have any special insight into prophecy, so we know that there is no reason to think they've correctly interpreted prophecy when it concerns the role they've posited for themselves. Thus, we have good reason reject the doctrinal supremacy of the Governing Body. 

And once this implication is grasped, then the ability to reason with a Witness on doctrine is greatly increased. This is true in my case, as I will relate in the future in more detail. And it is for this reason, and for the reason that it is not as confrontational as arguing that their Organization or its leaders are false prophets, that I recommend that this more modest case be made: they are not reliable interpreters of prophecy.

Next week, though, I will argue that given their own characterization of their role, interpretations and predictions, their leaders have made themselves out to be prophets. In the third and final post of this series, I will note of many of their predictions that have failed - a fact which once grasped is sufficient in of itself to reject the authority claims of the Governing Body, as I have said.

Sunday, December 24, 2017

"Five Proofs of the Existence of God"

Five Proofs of the Existence of God
November 29th, 2017

Edward Feser is a very readable and insightful author, not to mention a prolific one![1] And this work is no exception. There was only one thing overlooked, however, and that was a failure to attach the following warning for the protection of the new atheists: abandon all hope, ye who enter here. For in presenting his extensive case for classical theism, he dashes to pieces the pretensions of the new-atheists. (And it's not the first time he's done so.)

I like the cover
Perhaps, the first bad omen for Dawkins and Co. is the list of thinkers Feser draws from: Aristotle, Plotinus, Leibniz, Augustine, Aquinas. 'Who the hell are these people?' is probably all the new atheist can say. If knowing your enemy is half the battle, there is certainly no hope for the new atheists; however, Feser clearly knows the arguments of the new atheist and serious atheist alike. (The two camps, if they overlap, only do so only slightly.)

The book is divided into seven chapters, five for the five arguments for God's existence that he presents: (1) The Aristotelian Proof; (2) The Neo-Platonic Proof; (3) The Augustinian Proof; (4) The Thomistic Proof; (5) The Rationalist Proof. (The first four are kinds of cosmological arguments.) The sixth chapter is devoted to completing the work of explaining why we can know that God has the divine attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.), which he only touches on in the course of giving his five arguments, as well as explaining how God relates to the world. The seventh chapter more fully addresses objections to the arguments and project of natural theology. And it is with such objections, and Feser's responses, that I'll begin my summary.

Perhaps you don't see what's so great about cosmological arguments. How could you write 300 pages arguing that, since everything has a cause, and the universe has a cause, therefore, God exists. What caused God? Wouldn't God need a cause? Yet, if he doesn't, why think that the universe does? It's just so obviously wrong, right! Wrong! and Feser shows why.

While this straw-man is surprisingly popular among atheists, even among philosophers who should know better, it is nowhere embraced by any theist thinker. Indeed, the question the atheist should be asking isn't 'How could they believe something so obviously wrong', but 'Since they aren't idiots, even if they're wrong, this can't be what they're actually saying, so what are they actually saying?' If you read the first four chapters, you'll see what they actually are saying, and if you still don't get it by the seventh, he'll remind you again: theists don't say that everything has a cause, but that everything that begins to exist, is contingent, has an essence distinct from its existence, is composite, is a mixture of act and potency, etc. has a cause, which is a very different claim from 'everything has a cause'.[2]

Thus it will it not do for an atheist to dismiss the cosmological arguments that Feser presents as being mere superficial variants of a purported 'basic version' of the cosmological argument which argues that from the premise that 'everything has a cause'. One might as well dismiss evolution on similar grounds: sure no one actually says that humans descended from monkeys, but this is the basic version of evolution, everything else being mere superficial alterations to this basic claim, which is obviously wrong; thus we can easily dismiss evolution. Evolutionists would be rightly irked at such lazy thinking; well, us theists expect the same from you atheists.

Since the claim isn't 'everything has a cause' (where God is somehow arbitrarily exempted from this principle), saying that God lacks a cause whereas everything that isn't God has one isn't ad hoc. The claim is principled. Those things which are contingent, mixtures of act and potency, whose essences are really distinct form their existence, etc. must have a cause given the kind of things they are, but something which exists necessarily, and is pure actuality, and just is existence itself, etc. need not - indeed, could not - have a cause because of the kind of reality that He is.

Now before discussing the five proofs a bit, perhaps a word is in order about the word choice (i.e., "proof"). Doesn't "proof" seem a bit over-confident? Isn't "proof" only applicable in math or science? Actually, no. By "proof" Feser is indicating that the arguments rest on metaphysical positions that cannot coherently be denied (e.g., one can't coherently deny that change exists, or that composite objects exist, or that there are propositions that are necessarily true independent of human awareness of them), and the argument proceeded premise by premise deductively, and hence the conclusion they arrive at is certain. This isn't to say that every person who examines the arguments will accept them, at least not after the first few times they consider them. But this, he maintains, doesn't change the fact that they are proofs. (For comparison's sake, the Pythagorean theorem doesn't become less sure because I might ignorantly doubt or disbelieve it.)

As to his arguments I'll be brief, since I expect to argue for God's existence at greater depth elsewhere. First, to aid in understanding, some preliminary remarks are proper. Not only do these arguments not depend on the claim that 'everything has a cause' (a claim which he rejects), but they also don't rest on the claim that the universe as a whole began to exist or has a cause. Concerning the former claim - that the universe began to exist - these arguments would go through even if the universe was past eternal; concerning the latter - that the universe as a whole has a cause - this certainly is true, but it isn't a claim his arguments rest upon. You could start with the existence or activities of a rubber ball, a table or a water molecule and find out that God must exist as that things first cause here and now (and, by extension, anything else relevantly like that rubber ball, table or water molecule, namely, everything that is not God).

There is also the crucial distinction that Feser makes between two kinds of causal series. The first is a causal series ordered per accidens, which he helpfully refers to as a linear causal series, the other ordered per se, which he calls a hierarchical series. Understanding this distinction between the two kinds of series is the key to understanding why these arguments don't depend on a temporal beginning to the universe, but instead argue that anything in it must here and now have a first cause. Thankfully, Feser provides illustrations for these two kinds of series to aid the reader in apprehending them.

Set Your Fesers to Fun!
A father begetting a son, who begets a son, who begets a son and so on - this is an example of a linear causal series, of the sort that could in principle be past eternal.[3] You pushing a stick, which in turn pushes a rock - this is an example of a hierarchical causal series. What's the difference between the two? Note that a man can have children of his own even if his father dies. So his causal power to beget a son doesn't depend on his father's existence, that is, it is not here and now derived from the previous member(s) of the series. However, in the second illustration, the stick only moves the stone insofar as it is being moved by your hand. That is, in a hierarchical causal series, each member depends on the prior members for its existence and/or causal power. They are all instruments of the prior members, and therefore, only exist or function if the previous members do; thus they must all operate simultaneously with each other if they are to exist / operate at all.[4]

Now, the above illustration of a hierarchical casual series, while a bit simplistic, it is sufficient to see that, in such a series, its members are all instrumental causes, and hence don't act (or exist) on their own. More accurately, all but one of the series is an instrumental cause, existing or having causal power in a derivative way. Now the reason why we say 'all but one' is clearly not ad hoc, since the series must terminate. If every member of the series is an instrumental cause, then nothing could happen or none of them could exist. (In that case, what would they be instruments of?) Something that derives it's existence / causal power derives it from something, or it doesn't exist or have causal power, and that which doesn't have existence or causal power can't impart these to anything else.

So there has to be a first cause to get the whole series going; first, not in the sense of existing a temporally before the other (secondary) members of the series, but in having underived causal power and existence which it can in turn impart to the secondary causes.

Feser argues that the existence and activities of objects of every day experience here and now, including ourselves, fit into hierarchical causal series, and hence there must, in actuality, be a First Cause. For example: here and now,we are beings whose existence (that we are) is really distinct from our essence (what we are), and hence there must be something that 'puts them together', as it were, here and now, and if that which does so also has an essence distinct from its existence here and now it also needs these to be conjoined, etc., which is a hierarchical causal series. Now, this must terminate in something that can impart existence without deriving it from something other than itself, that is in something whose essence just is existence. The other three cosmological argument Feser develops, while independent from each other (insofar as they take their starting points from different aspects of everyday objects), reason in similar fashion.

He doesn't argue that this First Cause is the God of the Bible, though, he does believe that this is so; but that isn't the focus of this book, so his failing to make this further argument is not a defect in the book. But, as noted above, he argues why this First Cause must have the divine attributes (intellect, will, power and so forth), and why there could only be one such First Cause / God. And this is as important a task as arguing for the existence of the First Cause. It's fine to say that there is a First Cause that is pure actuality, or existence it self, or is purely simple, but this doesn't sound personal, and hence, not much like God. I can't do justice to how he argues for attributing the divine attributes to the First Cause of all things, but I will say a word or two on this matter in summary.

Probably omnipotence is the easiest of the divine attributes that can be seen. As noted above, everything depends on the First Cause of its existence and causal powers (and anything else that could possibly exist would as well), and hence this First Cause is omnipotent.

And yet, this isn't a personal attribute. Feser says much to argue for God's intellect and volition and goodness. I'll say less. He argues that God has knowledge, and thus intellect, from the first chapter on, but it has pride of place in his chapter on the Rationalist Proof, and then is further developed in his chapter on the divine attributes and God's relation to the world (Chapter 6). One argument he makes for this First Cause having knowledge takes as its starting point the principle that everything in an effect must exist in the total cause of that effect in some way. There are various ways this it can exist in its total effect - formally, virtually, etc. - and Feser does well in illustrating these concepts to the uninitiated. I won't do that, however.

Suffice it to say that the principle that the effect must exist in some way in the total effect must be true, given that the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is true. The PSR says that everything that exists has an explanation as to its existence and attributes. (Why believe the PSR? In short, the world acts as if is true, and not as if it is false. Also, to deny it is ultimately self-refuting.[5]) If some part of the effect didn't exist in the total cause, then its existence would lack an explanation. Feser argues that the way everything that God causes to exist exists in God is analogous to the way our own intellects can grasp things, and thus there is in God something analogous to intellect.

I just said analogously. What is the significance of that? Basically it is that we can't talk about God univocally. He doesn't exist in the same way as you or I do, he isn't good in the same way as you and I are, and so forth. However, we can predicate existence, goodness, intellect, power, etc. to God in a meaningful way; that is, we are not predicating existence, goodness, power, etc. to God equivocally compared to how we can predicate it of human beings. The senses are not wholly dissimilar. Feser provides arguments for analogical predication, also noting that we even employ it to describe the findings of science. Analogical predication, which Feser explains with technical precision, makes sense of the fact that God, as the most metaphysically fundamental reality is going to be unlike created things like you or me, and yet can be partially grasped; thus, when talking about God, we are not just limited to negative statements about God (God is not X), but can make positive ones too (Gos is Y). So this is an important part of natural theology, and one masterfully developed by Feser.

Before I finish my summary and officially recommend this book, I must describe what he says about God's relation to the world. Above, I noted that God is the source of the existence and causal power of everything that is not God. This would seem to indicate that God determines everything that happens as far as secondary causes are concerned. How can you are I have free will, if our causal powers stem from God? Here Feser usefully explicates various views on secondary causality (including human causality) opting for divine concurrence, which preserves human freedom, and the fact that secondary causes are true causes, and yet respects the fact that God is the first cause upon which everything depends. He has more to say about this as he describes God's relation to the world, of course, which just goes to show that this is quite an exhaustive work.

So, should you read Feser's new book? Yes! He gives a useful 300 page defense and explication of theism, gives important insights into how we can talk and think about God, and pushes back against numerous objections to both the project and arguments of natural theology. I only hope that my summary hasn't made it seem otherwise. And if it moves you to buy this book, I'm pleased.

P.S. It might be helpful to first read The Last Superstition and Aquinas.[6] Moreover, if one is up for a much more technical book, Scholastic Metaphysics goes into greater depth about many of the themes that Five Proofs. And of course, these books, like any worth reading, should be read multiple times, for that is how one profits the most.

[1] Here's a list of books that he's written (as of November 29th, 2017): (1) On Nozick; (2) Philosophy of Mind; (3) The Cambridge Companion to Hayek; (4) Locke; (5) The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism; (6) Aquinas; (7) Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics; (8) Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction; (9) Neo-Scholastic Essays; (10) [with J. Bessette] By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment; and (11) Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Not to mention he's also a college professor, essayist, blogger and father of six children!

[2] Given the popularity of this caricature of the cosmological argument, one wonders how well justified the atheism of most atheists really is. This should indicate that the case that Feser and his ancient predecessors make is at best only out of style, not refuted; and that listening to it on its own terms is urgently needed.

[3] At least as far as Feser is concerned in this book. In one of his blog posts, he indicates he is agnostic about the Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA), which argues that the universe is past finite. (This argument is defended by the likes of William Lane Craig and David S. Oderberg.) Myself, I tend to think that neither kind of causal series can be past infinite, though, I'm not entirely sure about the KCA.

[4] Simultaneity is not to be confused with instantaneous-ness.

[5] If it was false, then we would have no reason in principle to think that anything else of our experience has an explanation, even things which we think we have explanations for. That there seems to be an explanation is merely a brute, ultimately inexplicable fact. Indeed, this goes as far as undermining rational thought. While we take the reasons for a conclusion as explanations for why we accept that conclusion, given a denial of the PSR, we would have nor reason in principle to think that we deny the PSR for any reason, even if we think we have a reasons to deny it. Thus to deny the PSR is self-refuting.

If the PSR was false, then we should expect things to come into being without an explanation all of the time. Root beer bottles should be appearing everywhere, and yet that doesn't happen and my thirst is not quenched. Instead, the world (in itself, if not in our finite grasp of it) is rather regular and orderly, which would be a miracle if the PSR is not true.

[6] The Last Superstition is rather polemical, mean spirited some might say. However, that book should be understood in context, namely as a response to the works of the new atheists, who are, when it comes to matters philosophical and theological, as ignorant as a mule, but as flamboyantly derisive as all get out. Feser gives them a taste of their own medicine here, but then out does them in that he provides solid argumentation. Most of his other works, such as the one under discussion here, however, are more dispassionate, since they respond to (or are in part meant for) more sober minded and reasonable atheist critics.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

"Shades of Sheol"

Shades of Sheol
November 27th, 2017

The book is very readable, and its arguments are quite clear; even the more technical aspects (kept at a minimum it seems) can be followed with relative ease for a non-expert (if you get confused read it one or two more times, you'll probably get it then). Moreover, the summaries at the end of each chapter aid greatly in understanding what our author, Philip Johnston, is saying.

I like the cover as well.
What is he saying, what are his conclusions? Perhaps most surprising is that the OT writers weren't particularly concerned with what the afterlife was like. This can be seen by comparing what they wrote on the underworld and how frequently they wrote about the nature of the after life with the ANE generally. Their details are rather sparse and they find few occasions to discuss it, or to shed further light on the topic. No detailed mapping out of the underworld, description of the various entities that governed it and operated there, no developed thought on the powers of the spirits of the dead and how they could affect the living. In fact, what they did say ran contrary to much of what the ANE was saying.

To the OT writers, the underworld or realm of the dead was a place of inactivity and overwhelming weakness. Those in it were mere 'shades', who, if one wanted to contact them in necromancy, had to be awakened, thus indicating that their typical state was sleep-like. The dead were powerless to affect the living, and indeed, they couldn't do anything, even praise God. (Though, the underworld was 'naked' before God, and his power was present even there.)

What of Sheol? What is it? Who goes there? 'Sheol' is a name for the underworld, but given how and why its used, it doesn't refer to the underworld per se. Rather it is the underworld seen as the fate for the wicked and those under divine censure. Now, does that mean that the wicked only go to the underworld? More on that later.

Before we turn to the ultimate fate of the righteous and wicked, let's take a note to see further what this book says of how Israel interacted with the dead. In orthodox Israelite religion there was no need to interact with them. Worshiping them (as in the cult of the dead) or contacting them (in necromancy) was prohibited.[1] Some Israelites evidently left food for the dead (for their journey to the underworld, not continually as some pagans did), and this practice is mentioned neutrally.[2] But, again, it is something in addition to - even if not inimical to - orthodox Israelite thought. And, even those two prohibited practices are only mentioned (and often there condemned) occasionally, not frequently. Even in their apostate lapses, Israel wasn't particularly interested in the dead.

Now, what of the righteous - do they go to the underworld or no? is Sheol their dwelling place? Many psalms seem to indicate that they expected to be delivered out of Sheol, which they viewed as a most unwelcome fate. However, most of these only refer to deliverance from premature death, not 'ultimate' deliverance from death and the underworld. However, as implied, some seem to envisage that their communion with God will continue on after death; though, what exactly this entails is not spelled out. (But keep in mind that Sheol is presented as a place where the dead do not praise God.)

As time progresses, the idea of resurrection is developed. Some allege that this is largely due to pagan influence - perhaps from interaction with Persian religion during and after the exile to Babylon. However, this is quite unlikely, and in any event unnecessary. Israel had plenty in its own religion and experience to explain the development of resurrection into their theology. First, they knew - and as time went on, more keenly understood - that Yahweh is the sole and all-powerful God, and so that life and death were within his power: he could kill and could make alive. Moreover, in their history they had three recorded resurrections (or revivifications, returns to mortal life) performed by Elijah and Elisha by God's power. And, their constantly being devastated and restored as a nation was the background against which the imagery of resurrection was first employed. From there the natural development was individual and eschatological resurrection. Individual in that it was individuals - and not the nation as a whole in a metaphorical sense - being raised up; and eschatological in that this would not be a return to mortal life, but to perpetual life, and that this would take place at the end of history. This was the idea that was beginning to emerge as the OT comes to completion. During the intertestamental period further speculations were made, but it was left to the NT to flesh out this further - confirming or rejecting as the case may be various intertestamental speculations, drawing out the implications in the OT further - particularly in the case of Jesus Christ.

[1] Necromancy was seen as effective, however.

[2] The practice per se is not condemned, only the using the food used for this purpose in the tithe is.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Decline of Mainline Protestantism

The Decline of Mainline Protestantism
December 13th, 2017


From a friend in California
Do you see the problem? If not, here it is: what is a church of supposedly Christian denomination doing offering Hindu worship services? Now, it's really a typo, and the sign should read "Hindi Worship"; that is, the language not the religion. But given the present state of mainline Protestantism, is it so obvious that it's a typo?

Sunday, December 10, 2017

No Jewish High Priest For Me! - A Response to JimSpace (Part Four)

No Jewish High Priest for Me!
September 30th, 2017

(Part One / Part Two / Part Three / Part Four)

JimSpace makes an number of interesting, if ultimately poorly-reasoned, arguments to the effect that Jesus' offering himself as a sacrifice and his serving as our High Priest require that he was raised up as a spirit being, ceasing to be a human being. I will be responding to these argument as he presents them in his post Passing Through the Curtain
Additionally, as the High Priest carried only the sacrificial blood and not the sacrificed body past the curtain into the Most Holy, so Jesus then as our High Priest carried the value of his lifeblood that he willfully sacrificed in death and not his sacrificed body through the spiritual curtain.
The basic flaw I find in his arguments presently under consideration is that they press OT type and NT fulfillment too far. (It's a similar mistake as taking an analogy to far.) While OT types are fulfilled in the NT, not every aspect or detail of the OT type is fulfilled in the fulfillment of the type as a whole. And, we must be cautious in assuming this or that finds typological fulfillment in the NT.

Specifically, Paul doesn't mention anything about Jesus leaving behind his body, so we should not assume he must have as part of his fulfilling the OT type of the sacrifices prescribed under the Mosaic Law Covenant. Especially is this so where making that assumption would lead us to contradict the rest of the Scriptural witness, including those mentioned in the previous post.
Paul then compares the curtain, which separated the first compartment from the Most Holy compartment, to Christ’s flesh. 
Since the curtain "is" his flesh, why did Jim say that curtain was "spiritual" earlier?
The high priest in passing into the Most Holy, into God’s typical presence, did not carry the curtain with him but passed through that barrier and beyond it, so that it was behind him.
That is correct, but the high priests of the Old Covenant also didn't offer up the "curtain"; but Christ's flesh is both the curtain - which unlike the typical curtain, which prevented access to the Most Holy, facilitates our access thereto - and the offering. So this observation doesn't strengthen his case at all, since it undermines his assumption that there is a point-for-point correspondence between the OT type of sacrifices and its NT fulfillment in Christ.
he had actually presented the value of his sacrificed lifeblood to his Father in the spiritual Most Holy on the day of his resurrection.
A small, and ultimately irrelevant point, but John 20:17 seems to contradict this claim. And, since Jesus indicates that his body was human (and not merely appeared to be human), this would only strengthen my case.
After Jesus died on Nisan 14, the Temple’s curtain was rent from top to bottom down the middle. (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) The rending was doubtlessly a devastating, unmendable tearing. As the curtain signified Jesus’ flesh (Hebrews 10:20), a symbolic barrier preventing Jesus’ entry into heaven, its rending was a dynamic demonstration that his flesh was no longer a barrier to his entry into the spirit realm or heaven. 
Keeping in mind what I've previously said, why should we assume that it was his flesh (human body) pure and simple that prevented him from entering the Most Holy and thus needed to be discarded? Moreover, wouldn't the curtain still exist, and thus Jesus still possess his flesh (in some form)? Assuming that there is a type here, which the Bible doesn't explicitly claim, it would seem to be this: the rending of the literal temple curtain, which enabled entrance to the typical Most Holy place, was a type foreshadowing the fact that Jesus' mortal body must be killed (it was just prior to the rending), to enable access to the Most Holy place. Taken this way, this fulfillment-then-type (a strange order for typlogical fulfillment) doesn't imply that Jesus didn't take on glorified and now incorruptible human flesh after his resurrection.
Therefore, on Nisan 16 Jesus was resurrected and passed through the spiritual curtain with his sacrificed body outside, with the torn physical curtain now having exhausted its purpose before God. . . . 
The [M]essiah he would likewise leave his sacrificed body behind, just like the High Priest on Atonement Day who left the sacrificed body outside. Sacrificed bodies always remain outside, as Hebrews 13:11-12 and Leviticus 16:27 make clear, even equating the burned up animal sacrifice outside the Temple with Jesus’ sacrificed body.—Hebrews 10:10
The point of Hebrews 13:11-12 isn't that Jesus left his human body "outside" never to assume it again (in glorified form) but that, since he suffered outside of the city (Jerusalem), we too should suffer outside of the city, spurning it, but hoping for the city that is to come. (Hebrews 13:13,14) 
As Jesus was born from the tribe of Judah and not the priestly tribe of Levi, he could not serve as the Christian High Priest if he retained his Judahite body.—Matthew 1 and Luke 3 genealogies; Revelation 5:5; Numbers 1:50, 51.
Jim's reasoning seems to be: under the Mosaic Law, only a Levite descended from Aaron could serve as High Priest, so Jesus couldn't be a Judean if he serves as our High Priest. Not only is it not exactly the most convincing reasoning (we're not under the Mosaic Law), but it practically gets things backwards.[1]
Hebrews 7:12-14 - For since the priesthood is being changed, it becomes necessary to change the Law as well. For the man about whom these things are said came from another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord has descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests coming from that tribe.
It is because Jesus becomes the High Priest as a Judean - and indestructible Judean at that! (v. 16) - that Paul is able to discern that the Law or Covenant is getting replaced by something better, the New Covenant. Paul's reasoning seem to require Jesus being Judean, and thus human - as his used of "man" in the passage quoted above indicates.

And that is a fitting way to conclude this series, with yet another argument indicating that Jesus is a human after all - and one I had not considered until I read his post. I may return this topic in the future.

[1] And, it seems to me that if Jim thinks the requirements for the OT high priests apply to Christ, he should conclude that Christ must be Levite, and thus human. (But Jim seems to think that the OT requirements only apply a little: Jesus just can't be a Judean.)

Sunday, December 3, 2017

Hands-Free - A Response to JimSpace (Part Three)

Hands-Free
October 3rd, 2017

(Part One / Part Two / Part Three / Part Four)

It is sometimes argued that our resurrection bodies shall be immaterial since they're to be "made without hands". It is assumed that "made with hands" denotes the physicality of the subject - our present bodies for example - so the opposite must be true: if it is "not made with hands" it is immaterial. On this view, then, we shall exchange our present physical bodies for new immaterial ones in the resurrection.

However, I argue that, while many things "not made with hands" are immaterial, the two categories are not coextensive; and even when the expression is applied to immaterial things it is not meant about them qua immaterial. Further, being "made without hands" isn't simply a matter of being created by God, which wouldn't suffice to establish a things immateriality, anyway.[1] Rather, a thing's being "made without hands" denotes it as being made by God as a new creation, and as such being eternal, incorruptible and glorious. That something is "made with hands" implies that it belongs to this (present) creation, often as something that typifies that which belongs to the "new creation", and, whether it is made (directly) by God or not, is thus corruptible and frail.

The upshot is that one can't conclude that our resurrection bodies will be immaterial merely because they're "made without hands," since nothing about this definition necessitates the things of the new creation be immaterial. Further, I'll argue that some things of the new creation must be physical, including glorified mankind. Additionally, I'll note that some things in the new creations aren't made out of new cloth as it were, but are things that once were of 'this creation'that have been regenerated -changed, but not replaced. And this is how we should understand our resurrection bodies: we don't exchanged bodies, but our present mortal body will altered (glorified), yet being the same human body before and after.

To begin, let's note how 'made with(out) hands' is used in the Bible. And as we do so, note the connection between 'made with(out) hands' and being of the old/new creations respectively. That is, if something is "made without hands" it is of the new creation, but if it is "made with hands" it is of the old.
Mark 14:58 - We heard him say, ‘I will throw down this temple that was made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands.’ 
2 Corinthians 5:1 - For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens. 
Acts 7:48 - However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands, just as the prophet says.
Hebrews 9:11 - However, when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have already taken place, he passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 
Hebrews 9:24 - For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf. 
Ephesians 2:11 - Therefore, remember that at one time you, people of the nations by fleshly descent, were the ones called “uncircumcision” by those called “circumcision,” which is made in the flesh [with hands]. 
Colossians 2:11 - By your relationship with him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands by stripping off the fleshly body, by the circumcision that belongs to the Christ.
Of note for our present purposes is that Paul says that the 'holy place made without hands' is 'not of this creation', which I think is good indication that the terms are coextensive. Additional proof can be gleaned from how else "the circumcision that belongs to Christ" is described. It makes its recipient a new creation, it is through it that the new man is formed, and we become "spiritual men", by means of it we are in (union with) Christ. Paul says:
2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation; the old things passed away;[2] look! new things have come into existence. 
Galatians 6:15 - For neither is [literal] circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision, but a new creation is.
The circumcision belonging to Christ is (or makes the one receiving it) a new creation. It is described in other terms as well, most notably as stripping off the old man and being clothed with the new man "which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it". (Colossians 3:9,10) This new man is "created according to God's will in true righteousness and loyalty". (Ephesians 4:24) Its effect can be seen by contrasting one who has put on the 'new man' with the merely "physical" or "natural" man. Whereas a "physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them," the new man - or "spiritual man" - does accept the things of the spirit of God, considers them wise and gets to know them. (1 Corinthians 2:14)

It is also worth noting that what is being transformed is the same thing throughout - the heart of a person - though it becomes a new creation only as a result of God's activity through Christ. Thus something can become a new creation without ceasing to be. It changes, but it is not (always) exchanged for something wholly new.

However, it might be objected that so far, we've seen no proof that things of the new creation aren't all immaterial. On the contrary, I think the above is sufficient (at least in light of prior considerations) to show that our physical bodies will be human. Just as our 'inner man' is preserved as it becomes Spirit-centered, so too our bodies shall be preserved in glorified form. It is, by nature, physical, so it will be physical as a new creation as well. (It isn't a taking away but an adding to.) However, there is more to be said.

Specifically, the new creation will include a new earth and a human race to live upon it, both of which are physical. This can be seen a number of ways. There will be a new heavens and a new earth - are these part of the new creation? Will the new earth be physical? New Jerusalem - a city having real foundations (eternal) and whose builder and designer is God - seems to be of the new creation, and something that Christians will inherit, and which Abraham and the Patriarchs looked forward to. This all to me suggests that the new creation - those things "not made by hands" are not all immaterial, and specifically that human kind will be physical.
Revelation 21:1-5 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” And the One seated on the throne said: "Look! I am making all things new."
Particularly of note is the fact that God is making everything new, including the earth. And that mankind is mentioned here as being part of the new creation by name. They aren't described as spirit beings, but as - well, human.

I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, to show that "not made with hands" refers to things of the new creation, and that some things of the new creation will be physical. This shows that it simply won't do to say 'well the resurrection body will be 'not made with hands', so it is immaterial.' In fact, I think that some of the evidence - the new earth, for example - indicates that humans will be physical in the new creation (when the new creation comes in its fullness). What do you think?

[1] The Father made Christ's mortal human body (Hebrews 10:5), the cosmos, including the earth, as a whole, and Adam and Eve's body, but will anyone say that these are of the new creation?

[2] Note a similar expression is used when the new heavens and earth appear - 'the former things have passed away'.

[12/1/2017]
P.S. Jim has put up another post on this topic, this time responding to me, though, not by name. (See his post: With What Sort of Body?) I've already written the rough draft of my response. However, I feel like I'm repeating myself, since I am. Partly, because a lot of what I say in response to Jim hasn't been published yet, and so I'm making some of the points I make in these as of yet unpublished posts, and partly because in several ways Jim begs the question against me, and I have to explain why his ostensible refutation of something I said or some argument I gave fails on that ground; and to this degree, Jim seems to be talking past me. So, my still unfinished reply will not contain much new, for Jim has not sad much new. But that isn't to say that it isn't worth reading his latest post, and this despite things like this:
Therefore, these objections, and any others like them, really betray ignorance and mockery of the scriptures, shallow thinking, a bigoted complaining mentality, and sinful ingratitude for the ransom.
I decided that I will move up the remaining posts in my series responding to Jim. I'll post them starting in March 2018, maybe April 2018. At least two or three of them. The rest I'll publish by the end of next year. I want to space them out a bit, so as to cover a variety of topics. (Heck, I even have one defending Witnesses in some respects; that is, against an argument that I find bad, even though, I do agree with the conclusion. But I digress.)

[12/2/2017]
It occurs to me that I could also bring up the Transfiguration as well, perhaps I will. (Was he still human then? Were his clothing still physical?)

Sunday, November 26, 2017

'What Sort of Bodies are They to Have?' - A Response to JimSpace (Part Two)

'What Sort of Bodies are They to Have?'
September 30th, 2017

(Part One / Part Two / Part Three / Part Four)

In this post, I'll continue my response to Jesus' Resurrection Body by JimSpace. Specifically, I'll respond to his argument that Jesus' resurrection body and those of resurrected Christians are immaterial because they're 'made without hands.' And, I'll counter the related argument that, since Paul describes the resurrection body as 'spiritual', it must be an immaterial spirit body (kind of like an angel's); while I do so, I'll note what it means to say that 'flesh and blood' will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Jim says:
At John 2:19-22, Jesus propounded a riddle about his resurrection. . . . The Jews thought he was speaking of Herod's Temple, and used this against him later at his trial, where witnesses against him testified: "We heard him say, 'I will throw down this temple that was made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands.'" (Mark 14:58)
The verses he cites read:
Mark 14:58 - We heard him say, ‘I will throw down this temple that was made with hands, and in three days I will build another not made with hands.’ 
John 2:19-22 - Jesus replied to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said: “This temple was built in 46 years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples recalled that he used to say this, and they believed the scripture and what Jesus had spoken.
Jim asks if this means that his physical body would be restored. He says it wouldn't, noting that St. Paul describes the resurrection body of Christians in similar terms at 2 Corinthians 5:1; Paul says:
2 Corinthians 5:1 - For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, should be torn down, we are to have a building from God, a house not made with hands, everlasting in the heavens.
To Jim this is clear proof that "Christians raised to heavenly life are given spiritual bodies suited for life outside of earth's atmosphere and outside of the 'realms below,' the physical realm, following the pattern of Jesus who also received a spiritual body." Why? I think there are two reasons why Jim thinks that this is so.

First, Jim notes that Jesus said these remarks when his body was obviously physical, and so equates 'made with hands' with 'physical'. Thus, 'not made with hands' must mean 'immaterial'. 

I disagree; while there might be significant correlation between what is physical and what is 'made with hands' the two terms are not coextensive. The latter description, in fact, refers to what is of this (present) creation, what is corruptible, frail, mortal, and often to things that foreshadows things to come in the new creation. Similarly, what is 'made without hands' are things that belong to the new creation, not primarily to what is made by God pure and simple, or what is immaterial; but to that which are made by God as new creations, and thus to things that are eternal, glorious, powerful, incorruptible. Physicality isn't ruled out in the new creation, so Jim' argument collapses. I'll explain this point further in next week's post, Hands-Free.

Second, Jim notes that Paul describes the resurrection body of Christians as "spiritual" - which he takes to mean immaterial - at 1 Corinthians 15:35-57, and that since the same body is being discussed at 2 Corinthians 5:1, which Paul describes it as "made without hands", he assumes that 'made without hands' describes the resurrection body qua immaterial.[1] And so, Jesus' body, since it was 'made without hands' is also immaterial. We'll examine this argument today.

However, there are two problems with this view (the less significant is noted in the footnote). Primarily, it just isn't the case that "spiritual" means "immaterial", as an examination of 1 Corinthians 15 will reveal. Paul contrasts our present bodies with our resurrection bodies at 1 Corinthians 15:42,43:
1 Corinthians 15:42,43 - It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power.
Nothing here indicates that the resurrection body is immaterial. However, things seem to change in verse 44:
1 Corinthians 15:44 - It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. 
It looks like I'm down for the count. However, I have a trick or two up my sleeve. First, I would like to note that the "it" (namely, our body) is the same throughout. It is sown . . . and the same "it" is raised up. Since an immaterial body can't be the same as a physical body, this gives us some indication that "spiritual" shouldn't be taken as "immaterial". To be sure, there is a great deal of change to the body at the resurrection, but the end result isn't an immaterial, angel-like body.

More persuasively, we can note that Paul elsewhere uses "spiritual" (pneumatikos in Greek) in ways that don't indicate the immateriality of the thing described as "spiritual". Let's turn back a few pages:
1 Corinthians 2:14,15 - But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man.
Commenting on this verse, William Lane Craig says:
Here the contrast is not between material, visible, tangible man and immaterial, unextended, invisible man. Rather, the natural man is the man who is dominated by the fallen human nature and oriented toward it. The spiritual man is the man who is filled with the Spirit of God and dominated by and oriented toward the Spirit of God.
Elsewhere, Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 - Now I want you to know, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink.
The food and drink weren't immaterial, instead their origin were supranational (and they typified things that were yet to come), and hence Craig prefers rendering pneumatikos as "supernatural". Correspondingly, he prefers "natural" to "physical".

Going back to 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, Craig concludes:
[Thus the contrasts here is] between a natur[al] body and a supernatural body that will be dominated by and orientated toward the Spirit of God.
Those who are spiritual men, will receive appropriate bodies in the resurrection; and nothing about this fact necessitates their receiving immaterial ones, which defeat's Jim's case.

What about this, though:
1 Corinthians 15:50 - Flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
Some attempt to avoid the apparent immaterial implication of this passage by appealing to a less than persuasive technicality: Jesus only had flesh and bone, not blood ergo, he uh . . . Jim rightly rejects such reasoning.

Still what is meant by "flesh and blood" =/= what is meant by "flesh and bone", nor does it mean "human" pure and simple. Instead, the former is primarily used in connection with mortal and frail human nature. However, "flesh and bone" isn't so limited; but it extends to humanity as such. Adam and Eve were of one "flesh and bone" (even in an unglorified albeit unfallen state), and Jesus (in a glorified state) noted that he was of "flesh and bone" (whereas, he said, spirits are not).

Rightly understood, that "flesh and blood" won't inherit God's Kingdom doesn't imply that human beings won't inherit God's Kingdom, only that those of mortal, frail, corruptible (and sinful and fallen, some suggest) human nature cannot. This is perfectly consistent with saying that men with glorified, incorruptible human bodies led by the Spirit can. And so, this passage is of little help to Jim or to those who have similar views.

The points made in these last two posts suffice, I think, to demonstrate that Jesus is a human being, one with a supernaturally glorified body. Still there is more to discuss. We'll have two more posts in this series before taking a break, with the fifth (a response to his most recent post on this subject) to follow some time after.

[1] Even if the resurrection body is immaterial, I don't think we'd be justified in assuming that 'made with hands' = physical, and 'made without hands'  = immaterial.

[11/21/2017]
P.S. Someone has suggested that my comparison of Jesus' radiant appearance to that of Moses' face after he descended from Sinai argues against the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body. My friend, who suggested this to me, didn't elaborate, so either the suggestion was not his and he didn't know how its originator proceeded to develop it, or it was his but he hadn't yet developed it. Personally, I'm don't think there is anything to develop, it's dead on arrival.

Why did Moses' face shine after he came down from Sinai? This was due to something extrinsic to him, so it was something miraculous. Was Jesus able to become brighter than the Sun (and Moses) in like manner, or did he possess this power within himself? I assume the argument - if there is any to be found here - assumes it was something extrinsic to him, that is, something that human beings couldn't pull off on their own. Where does that leave us - with a nonphysical, non-human Jesus?

Hardly. We'd have a Jesus who was able to miraculously (by God's power) shine brightly. From this it doesn't follow that Jesus is immaterial. Indeed, that we are talking about light, suggests that we are talking about something physical. And, even if it turns out we are not talking about someone physical (that is, Jesus is not a physical being), we have no reason to assume that given the present suggestion. Or if we did, we would have reason to think Moses was as well; but he wasn't, nor is Jesus. It's just a non-sequitur.

[11/24/2017]
Part of what motivates Jim's argument is the purported absurdity of God preserving the human Jesus in environments that are hostile to human life. One can ask if the preservation of the Israelite's clothing in the Wilderness or the three Hebrews in the furnace are likewise beyond credence.

[11/25/2017]
Jim harshly criticized me for misunderstanding his view on materialization. In a comment on Part One he claims that I mischaracterized due to laziness or insincerity his position on materialization.

What did I say to earn this ire? My guess is that I said 'if Jim says X' or 'if Jim says Y', which to Jim indicates my unfamiliarity with his views. (Why not say 'Jim says X'?) Or, perhaps because I say, 'I don't think Jim wants to say that angels or Christ formed true human bodies when they materialized' when Jim says just that, or at least something much like it, to wit: "[they made] human flesh" and "they construct[ed] real, functional male bodies." (How could you say, 'I don't think I would say X' when I say X?)

Still, if Jim had taken the time to read my essay dispassionately, he would have recognized that this issue plays only a minor role in my overall case in that essay. And that I think I do address his position on materialization vis-a-vis Jesus statement "I have flesh and bone, as a spirit does not". Instead of spitefully accusing me of deception, complaining, intellectual-laziness and insincerity - faults which his comment exhibits, but from which my essay is innocent - he could have responded to my argument. Anyway, I want to address why I spoke as I did and why Jim is wrong in thinking that I mischaracterized his position.

As I understand it, he affirms that angels don't become human beings when they materialize. So they don't transform angelic-bodies in toto into human bodies (since that would just be for them to be human beings, it seems). Do they transform part of what makes them up into matter, which they then shape into a human form? It seems that Jim doesn't believe this, instead they use some source external to them (e.g., the matter near by where they want to appear). In any event, the product of materialization is, Jim says, a fully functioning human (male) body.

I wrote:
I think that Jim doesn't want to say that angels, when they "materialize", cease to be spirits beings, or that Jesus ceased to be a spirit being when he "materialized".
I know that Jim doesn't think this. It wouldn't make sense for him, since he would just give the game away to the view that Christ was raised up a human being.

I also said:
Nor do I think he wants to say that that Jesus literally had a complete human body again.
Now, why did I say "I don't think Jim wants to say X" when Jim seems to say X (and I know he says X)? The main reason is that, I don't think it makes sense for Jim to say X, and I give reasoning to that effect. Which Jim completely ignores, contenting himself to insult.

I continue:
. . . since this seems to imply that he took on human nature again (especially for a physicalist like Jim, where a human being just is their body functioning in a certain way), which Jim denies; he also denies that Jesus could or does have two natures, and saying that Jesus during his resurrection appearances had a true human body would seem to entail something like the Hypostatic Union (only a angelic-human union instead of a Divine-human union).
My argument is that, if a fully functioning (male) human body is present, then so is a human man. But Jim doesn't want to say that. If he does, he either has to say that the human is not Jesus, but then how can we say that Jesus is the one who has appeared / materialized. If it is Jesus, and if Jesus is still a angelic being as well, then it seems we have a angelic-human nature union going, analogous to the Hypostatic Union which Jim loathes. Jim owes us an explanation as to how a human body can be present without there also being a human being present. I don't think he can do so, and at least hasn't even tried.

Why is this important? Because my argument is that, only human beings can have "flesh and bone" as Jesus did. Angels can only simulate these things, make what outwardly looks like flesh and bones. Jesus claimed he truly had these, so it wasn't a mere materialization. This is perhaps a more extravagant way of making the point that since Jesus was not a spirit, you can't solve the "I have flesh and bones" saying by saying he was a materialized spirit, since that is just to say "I am a spirit appearing as a man some way or other", which is to implicitly deny that Jesus says he was not a spirit. At least the points complement each other.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

'He is Risen' - A Response to JimSpace (Part One)

'He is Risen'
September 26th, 2017

(Part One / Part Two / Part Three / Part Four)

Today, I'll be responding to JimSpace's post Jesus' Resurrection Body (here). There will be three posts immediately following this and a forth (for a total of five) further down the road.
The Christian Scriptures describe his resurrection body both as material and non-material or spiritual. For instance, his body could be observed as physical and he could be touched. He also walked, ate and drank. (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:15, 39, 43; John 20:20; Acts 10:41) Yet, he is also described as disappearing from sight and suddenly appearing in a group. This is reminiscent of "beaming up" and "beaming down" of Star Trek fame. (Luke 24:31, 36; John 20:19) Additionally, Acts 1:3 points out that during a forty-day period he "was not continually visible to the apostles ... but appeared to them on various occasions" only. (NET Bible, footnote); and Acts 10:40-41 informs us that his post-resurrection appearances were done selectively. His absence in between those selected intervals of time may be explained by him disappearing. Thus, Jesus was materializing and dematerializing at will, just as spirit beings did prior as recorded in the Hebrew Bible.—Judges 6:21, Genesis 19. See also Acts 12:10.
Jim takes "spiritual" to mean something like 'composed of spirit' or 'is a spirit - like an angel'; however, taken this way, the evidence he gives is insufficient to warrant his claim that Jesus resurrection body is described in the Bible as "spiritual". Physical objects can disappear from view, and I don't see what, in principle, could prevent them from being rendered invisible, or being instantaneously moved from once place to another.[1] If such things can sensibly be said of physical objects, like the human body - and Jim gives us no reason to think otherwise - then we have no reason to think that, since such things are said of Jesus' resurrection body, it is therefore immaterial.
Another spiritual manifestation that is most noteworthy is Jesus' appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus.
Why is it "spiritual"? Because Jesus was a spirit (as angels are)? Or, because Paul saw it in a vision, or 'out of the body'? Jim seems to take the first option: Jesus just was a spirit being. How does he know this? Because Jesus radiated light "beyond the brilliance of the sun" at midday", his "resurrection body was clearly . . . supernatural and manifestly non-material."

Well, light is a physical thing, so that he radiated it in great quantities seems to imply that he was physical. Also, compare this account with Exodus 34:29-25 and 1 Corinthians 3:7. There, Moses' face is evidently bright and glorious because he talked to God, but Moses didn't cease to have a human body. Why Jim doesn't think a glorified human body could shine brighter than the sun at midday, I'm not sure; but, it seems to me, that merely doing so isn't sufficient for us to conclude your body is immaterial.

Jim goes on to reference Daniel's vision of an angel (Daniel 10:5,6) and John's of Jesus at Revelation 1:12-16, noting that these descriptions are similar to each other and to how Jesus appeared to Paul. Somehow this gets him to conclude that Jesus has a "supernatural and manifestly non-material" body. I'm not sure why. Evidently if two things are described as appearing (in person or in visions) in similar ways, they must be the same kind of thing. I find that a stretch. (Additionally, I'm not convinced that "supernatural" = "immaterial".)
In Luke 24:39-43 and John 20:27, Jesus is appearing as a materialization, not as a spirit or vision, bearing his stigmata as a sign.
Let's also quote the passages mentioned:
Luke 24:39-43 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as you see that I have.” And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. But while they were still not believing for sheer joy and amazement, he said to them: “Do you have something there to eat?” So they handed him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it before their eyes.

John 20:27 - Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop doubting but believe.”
Jim says that Jesus wasn't a spirit. Well, not exactly. He says that Jesus wasn't a non-materialized spirit", which is to say that he was a materialized spirit. And a materialized spirit just is a spirit merely appearing as if he was a human being; a spirit in humans' clothing, if you will. However, Jesus' claim seemed to be stronger than that, and thus inconsistent with Jim's qualified (pseudo-)affirmation that Jesus was not a spirit.

Now would be a good time to say something about what it means for a spirit to materialize. The Bible doesn't shed much light on this. Does it mean that they utilize matter and construct a semblance of a human body which they might control as a puppet? Or do they transform some parts of them into matter from which can fashion what appears to be a human body? In either case do they, strictly, speaking create a human body, or only what is only a human body in name only, which they merely control as a puppeteer controls his puppets?[2]

I think that Jim doesn't want to say that angels, when they "materialize", cease to be spirits beings, or that Jesus ceased to be a spirit being when he "materialized". Nor do I think he wants to say that that Jesus literally had a complete human body again, since this seems to imply that he took on human nature again (especially for a physicalist like Jim, where a human being just is their body functioning in a certain way), which Jim denies; he also denies that Jesus could or does have two natures, and saying that Jesus during his resurrection appearances had a true human body would seem to entail something like the Hypostatic Union (only a angelic-human union instead of a Divine-human union).

In any event, the key point is this: Jim still takes Jesus to be a spirit, yet Jesus says that he isn't a spirit; Jim can't accept Jesus' words as they are, but must do violence to their meaning in order to appear to affirm what the Bible says.
At Acts 17:31 and 1 Timothy 2:5, the resurrected Jesus is called "a man." This description would naturally refer to Jesus' experience as a man on earth during his ministry—it would more fittingly be applied to him being a man experientially, not ontologically.
Naturally, of course! While Jim says that what he's doing here is just exegesis, it doesn't seem like it. Given the above, it seems the natural way to take these verses is to say that Jesus is - present tense - "ontologically" a man, that is, to take them at face value.
(As we know, human flesh cannot survive outside of earth's [sic] protective atmosphere. Making his flesh do so would be a continuous miracle from 33 C.E. and is completely unnecessary.) This natural exegesis also follows for Christians resurrected to heavenly life, for as we know, physical bodies can only exist in an earthly environment. Claiming otherwise destroys credibility, as continuous miraculous molecular micromanagement is both unnecessary and absurd.
Does Jim think the moon landings were fake? I presume not, even though the astronauts were outside of the Earth's atmosphere. If men can fashion some way to preserve a mortal, corruptible and frail human bodies outside of Earth's atmosphere, why couldn't God sustain an immortal, incorruptible, powerful, glorified human body outside of the earth's atmosphere? (And where does Jim think the man Jesus is? Floating around in outer space? Is God unable to prepare a place for him until his return that is conducive to his life as a glorified human in lieu of Earth?)

Jim just asserts that it's obvious - that we should know - that human flesh cannot survive outside of the Earth's atmosphere, but it isn't and Jim doesn't give any argument to think otherwise. As we know, the water of the Red Sea doesn't just stand on each side of people trying pass through it, therefore it must not have happened. Or something like that.

Further, he complains that it would strain credibility to say that God sustains Jesus' body part by part.[3] But since God sustains the entire word, conserving all things in existence, it isn't that implausible to think that God could or would sustain Jesus' body. Perhaps a bit more imagination is in order.
Romans 8:11 - If, now, the spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in you.
Jim argues that Romans 8:11 doesn't indicate that our present physical, human bodies will be made glorious, and thus this verse is no proof that we will retain physical bodies in the Resurrection. If that is so, he argues, we shouldn't think that Jesus received an incorruptible human body either. This line of reasoning rests on his claim that the context indicates that 'being made alive' is meant "in a spiritual sense."

What does he mean by "spiritual sense" here? Composed of, or being a spirit being? I don't think so. I think he means 'having died toward sin, and having become godly' or something like this. (This will come back to bite him later on when we talk about what it means for the resurrection body to be 'spiritual'.) I'll concede this point (what 'made alive means' not the further implication he draws from this), at least for the sake of argument; because by itself, this doesn't show that the dead won't be raised up as humans with glorified, yet physical, bodies.
Similarly, Colossians 2:9 teaches that in Jesus "all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily." This is clearly referring to a divine spirit body as presented in 1 Corinthians 15:45, 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:18.
I don't think that Watchtower would agree about limiting the reference of Colossions 2:9 to his resurrection body, in some places they seem to apply this passage, at least in part, to Jesus' earthly ministry; it wasn't so clear to them. Why is it clear to Jim? I don't think the answer is found in Colossians 2:9 or its context, rather it is clear to him in light of three other verses he mentions.

1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Peter 3:18 are of no help to him if "spirit" refers to the Holy Spirit, since those passages wouldn't be touching on the nature/composition of Jesus' resurrection body, only the principle by which it is alive or toward which it is directed. Most translations says "by the Spirit"; however, I won't discuss how the verses should be translated, since I know no Greek. At worst for the traditional view of Christ's resurrection, that means we should put these to the side as unhelpful or irrelevant. This leaves us with 1 Corinthians 15:45.
1 Corinthians 15:45 -  So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
I don't see why - in light of the above, including Jesus' own words - the word "spirit" couldn't be used of Jesus' human nature. (However, it is also important to note that Jesus possesses two natures, one of which is spiritual; the reference might be to him according to his other nature. Whether this other nature be angelic or the Divine Nature is beside the point here; though, I think it is more likely than not that this other nature is the Divine Nature.)

One of the reasons I say that Jesus being called "a life-giving spirit" doesn't mean that he was resurrected as a spirit being (or like an angel) can be expressed this way: "spirit" often refers to that which enlivens, to things as different as the human spirit (which animates the human body) or God's Spirit which is the ultimate source of life. In each case, "spirit" doesn't describe the nature of the thing, but its function, which, broadly speaking, is to impart life. Jesus, unlike Adam (who merely had life) will impart life to whoever he wants it (and not even mere existence at that). Since a glorified human Jesus could do this, it would not be improper to call him "a life-giving spirit." [4]

Jim also says that Hebrews 5:7 "places Jesus' being in the flesh in the past."
Hebrews 5:7 - [In the days of his flesh], Christ offered up supplications and also petitions, with strong outcries and tears, to the One who was able to save him out of death, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear.
But does "flesh" = "having / being a human body"? Well what did the resurrected Jesus say? He had flesh and bones (idiomatic for having / being a human body). So "flesh" =/= "possessing / being a human body". Indeed, "flesh" is often used idiomatically to refer to what is frail, mortal or corruptible. Thus, Paul is merely saying that 'While Jesus was in his mortal body' or 'Before he was resurrected . . .'[5]
Of additional interest is John 6:63, where Jesus declared: "It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all." (NWT) The later clause has been alternately rendered as "The flesh doesn't help at all" (HCSB) and "the flesh counts for nothing." (NIV) Jesus' statement here would seem to support the conclusion that he now has no use for the physical body he had on earth, and ceased needing it after he vanished from sight for the final time. (Acts 1:9) It is now his spirit body that is life-giving and the only one he needs.
Jim is taking John 6:63 out of context. Jesus isn't describing the nature of the body he will have at his resurrection. The verse and Jesus continue, "The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life." He is teaching that his sayings, which impart life, are to those who obey them "spirit", which I think helps the point I finished making above. This indicates that by "flesh" Jesus meant something like "the yearnings and desires of sin" and that these are of no help at all. (See Romans 8:6) (Compare how the New International Version renders John 6:63.)

And even if Jesus was talking about his resurrection body, Jim's point still fails. Why assume that Jesus was saying that that he wouldn't have flesh (which Jim takes to mean a physical human body, whether mortal or no) at all, instead of saying that it was his spirit (or the Spirit) which gave him life? The former option is true of you and me right now, and the latter option will be true of Christians in the Resurrection. (James 2:26)

To wrap up this post, I would like to note that Jim fails to demonstrate that "spiritual" = "composed of spirit" or "is a spirit being." And fails to adequately account for Jesus' reference to himself as human (and explicitly as not a spirit) and other passages that refer to him as a human. Much of his case is based on his incredulity that a (glorified) human being could exist outside of the Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps he realizes that if he concedes that Jesus was raised up as a human, then all the righteous will be, and this threatens to undermines the Witness' two-tiered system of Christians. (Whether this would - by itself - do so isn't clear to me; it would at least present that view with great difficulty.)[6]

[1] Which, while it would superficially (visually) resemble transportation in Star Trek, is different therefrom. In the case of transportation, the object that is 'transported' is actually destroyed as it is scanned. A duplicate is made of different matter at the 'destination' according to the pattern of the original. However, I'm suggesting that the self-same object can move from place to place instantaneously. Fro scifi fans this might be more like a wormhole.

[2] The Witness view is that while spirit creatures have "materialized as men" (such as before the flood), this doesn't mean that they were literally men. (Watchtower, November 1st, 1962 p. 648) Commenting on the title "Son of Man" as applied to Jesus, their book Insight on the Scriptures (vol. 1, p. 324) says, "it applies to Jesus Christ and shows that . . . he was not simply a spirit creature with a materialized body." Spirit creatures, when they materialize, have what is in some sense a "body"; I think it is a human body in name only, only a semblance of a human body which they control like a puppet.

[3] Sorry, Hylomorphists, we're not going to talk about the 'virtual' as opposed to 'actual' presence of atoms in the human body. But that is an interesting topic all the same.

[4] There is more to be said, but let's leave that for another post.

[5] Compare this with how the verse is translated in the New World Translation. There it says 'In his days on the earth . . .' Christ offered up tears, strong pleas and so forth. This it seems is activity done before his death and resurrection, yet Christ was on the earth - at least as a materialized angel-like being - after dying for our sins and being raised up for our salvation.

[6] My use of numerous footnotes is likely a sign of my lack of good writing skill, but oh well. Anyway, I will say more about the two-class doctrine later. For now, note that Witnesses teach that 144,000 Witness will be turned into spirit beings to rule in heaven over the earth ('the anointed' which correspond with the 'little flock'), upon which the 'great crowd' of perfect humans will live.

[11/17/2017]
P.S. Jim just published another post on this topic, which I've written a response to. It doesn't really add much to his case, though, I might have said something in my response that I didn't say in this or the following three posts. However, my response won't appear until February 23rd, 2020, given the schedule of posts I have (a good portion of which are already written or in the process of being written).

Sunday, November 12, 2017

A Little Pagan Won't Kill You - Maybe

A Little Pagan Won't Kill You - Maybe
September 29th, 2017
[Revised: April 15th, 2018]

The basic flaw with the prohibitions the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses have birthdays and (most) holidays is that it doesn't attend to the obvious distinction between a practice that is pagan per se and one that only has accidental (contingent) association with paganism. Provided something isn't pagan in of itself, and isn't done for a pagan end, where exactly is the scriptural ground for its prohibition; aren't all things pure to those who are pure? (Note, some holidays and practices are pagan. For example, I'm not saying that we should celebrate Hindu holidays.)

In fact, from time to time a Watchtower or Awake! will appear, seeming to demonstrate that they grasp this point, at least when it concerns other once pagan things, such as windchimes, wedding rings and piñatas; here are three relevant excepts from Witness publications.
"Would it be wrong for a Christian to use wind chimes in his or her home? . . . If one’s motive in putting up a wind chime [which in some places have connection to paganism] has nothing to do with false religion, superstition or demonism, and there is little possibility of others’ getting the wrong impression regarding its use in the home, it is a simple matter for personal decision." - Watchtower June 1st, 1981 (p. 31) 
"Even if it were a fact that pagans first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices. . . . Really, the question is not so much whether wedding rings were first used by pagans but whether they were originally used as part of false religious practices and still retain such religious significance." - Watchtower January 16th, 1972 (p. 63) 
"We found that for many people in Mexico, the piñata has lost its religious significance and is considered by most to be just harmless fun. In fact, piñatas are used in Mexico on many festive occasions, not just for the posadas or for birthdays. And piñatas can be purchased in many forms other than the traditional star shape. They are sometimes made to resemble animals, flowers, clowns. 
"When considering whether to include a piñata at a social gathering, Christians should be sensitive to the consciences of others. (1 Corinthians 10:31-33) A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area." - Awake! September 22nd, 2003 (pp. 23-24)
I fail to see how such reasoning doesn't apply to birthday celebrations or most holidays and many of their attendant customs. Apparently the 'Faithful and Discreet Slave' didn't find anything too objectionable until the 50s, when, as far as I can tell, they first condemned celebrating birthdays.

They claimed that such practices "are steeped in false worship," even though this is demonstrably false (at least by the standards described above), since most people don't view celebrating Christmas or their friends' birthdays as pagan in the slightest. (But the more modest, but accurate "they were . . ." wouldn't support the prohibition they wanted to impose. (See: Watchtower November 1st, 1951 (p. 607)

A separate, perhaps weaker, argument was also laid out (and is still common among Witnesses today): the Bible mentions two birthdays where someone was murdered! Check and mate! Clearly, this is a sign that God views birthdays in a negative light, right? Well, it's not exactly an airtight argument. The inference they make strains credibility too much.

It's not like the Bible said that birthday celebrations as such are objectionable. Surely, the pagan motives and beliefs that accompanied these specific celebrations aren't proper, and the murders committed at them are especially evil, but it goes far beyond reading between the lines to claim to find a biblical prohibition on birthdays.

At best, it proves too much. If merely being mentioned as the occasion for other, essentially unrelated evil actions is evidence that they're evil, it seems like we'll have to ban eye-liner as well. After all, it was mentioned in connection to wicked queen Jezebel and apostate Israel; and we don't want to be like them! (2 Kings 9:30; Jeremiah 4:30)

Instead of proscribing others from celebrating things that are not objectionable in of themselves, Let us only seek the advantage of our fellows so that love should have its work complete.