Is Paradise Earth Biblical?

Reviewing the article, “Just Ahead – A Paradise Earth!” from the August 2008 Watchtower.

I would also recommend reading an article I wrote on this topic from a few years ago. It takes a different approach than this current podcast. Read it HERE.

Subscribe to the JW Review Podcast HERE

Support MJF Apologetics through Patreon HERE

Skype contact: mjfelk82_1

Email me HERE


58 thoughts on “Is Paradise Earth Biblical?

    1. The comment section is always open, so feel free to say whatever you like in relation to this post. But you’ll get more interaction from me if you do one point at a time.

  1. And listening to your podcast, I was a bit confused by what you were saying. It seems you said at one point that all Christians end up in heaven forever with Christ but then at another point you seem to say that there will indeed be a paradise earth.could you please clarify that for me?

    Thanks
    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      I’m not sure where I stated or implied that all Christians end up in heaven forever. I’m stating the opposite, that all Christians end up on the new earth forever. This has been my position for quite some time. I wrote an article on this a few years ago that may serve as a compliment to the podcast in further clarifying my position: https://michaeljfelker.com/2012/11/17/is-paradise-earth-a-biblical-teaching/

      Just so it’s clear, i’m also a dualist, so I don’t deny that Christians go to heaven until Christ returns to resurrect their physical bodies to be united to their souls on the new earth. But this is secondary to my primary position on Christians and old covenant believers resurrecting to the new earth.

  2. Your eschatological views require the existence of a non-dying soul which the Bible does not speak of nor does it teach it and in fact,it denies it. That belief is a self inflicted fetal wound to your theology. That is the topic that should really be fully examined as it would reveal much of Christendom’s errors when it comes to life after death. That is one of the pillars of Christendom’s support, and without It, their entire after life scenarios or simply imaginations with no substance .

    Thank you, Rother ham

  3. Your eschatological views require the existence of a non-dying soul which the Bible does not speak of nor does it teach it and in fact,it denies it. That belief is a self inflicted fatal wound to your theology. That is the topic that should really be fully examined as it would reveal much of Christendom’s errors when it comes to life after death. That is one of the pillars of Christendom’s support, and without It, their entire after life scenarios are simply imaginations with no substance .

    Thank you, Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      I’m not sure you really understand my eschatalogical views well enough to think that they “require” dualism or even eternal conscious torment. In fact, I don’t recall even making such an argument (i.e. reliance on dualism) to establish the fact that all Christians will be on the new earth for eternity. I know of plenty of Christians who are physicalists/conditionalists who hold an eschatology similar to mine. If I became a physicalist/conditionalist, i’m not sure that it would change a whole lot with regards to my eschatology.

  4. You claimed that Christians are in heaven until the resurrection to be reunited with their physical bodies to then live forever on earth. While in heaven, are you saying that they are physical? ,If not then they would be spiritual. How is that not some kind of dualism?
    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      I’m affirming dualism, not denying it. I’m just saying that my eschatalogical view doesn’t necessarily require it. In other words, if you make me into a physicalist, I don’t think it’s going to bring me much closer to a JW eschatology.

  5. This isn’t making much sense to me. Let me ask, when a Christian is in heaven, does he exist as a conscious, disembodied soul or what?

    Rotherham

      1. Well then Mike. As I stated, by necessity,in order for your Theology to work you have to believe in a conscious soul that survives the death of the body. Again this is isomething that the Scriptures do not teach in fact deny it. So your eschatological views are faced with an insurmountable problem from the beginning. The only way for your views to work, you must teach an unscriptural doctrine about the soul of man and what it is from the beginning.

        rotherham

  6. Rotherham,

    It seems like you are literally just ignoring what i’m writing. If you really tried to understand my position, you could create some objections that carry more weight with me. Currently, your arguments are at the level of mere conjecture and carry zero weight.

  7. I am responding exactly to what you are saying. If anyone is ignoring the consequences of your own words, it is you. You have acknowledged that, according to your view,there are disembodied, conscious, living souls in heaven. The Bible denies that teaching, so I am not ignoring anything. It is you who is ignoring the consequences of your own words. You and the majority of Christendom.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      Your original point was to establish that my eschatology is dependent on my position on the soul. I responded in showing that it isn’t. You’re acting as if my whole eschatology would fall apart if I became a physicalist.

  8. You have not shown that your position is not reliant on a non-dieing soul. you have acknowledged that according to your view there are disembodied conscious souls in heaven. But, if disembodied souls do not exist in heaven according to the Bible, your eschatology is dead in the water.

  9. I am amazed how this escapes you, Mike. Let’s say that point A is when the Christian dies on earth and point B is when he is resurrected. How does he get from point A to point B? How could he get from point A to point B without a disembodied soul? You have already admitted that they live in heaven as disembodied souls.You need the disembodied soul as the intermittent vehicle to get from point A to B.

    Rotherham

  10. Maybe eschatology is not the exact terminology. maybe it is more to do with the intermittent state, which many include within the scope of eschatological discussions. But regardless of what it is called,in order for the christians in your view to get from point a to point b, from death to resurrection, you must incorporate a conscious disembodied soul in order to get there.You seem to me to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you affirm that the intermittent state is of a disembodied soul in heaven, but on the other you claim a disembodied soul is not needed. how exactly then, would it work for you? please answer this, in your viem, how does a Christian get from death to resurrection without the incorporation of a belief in a disembodied soul?

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      Now you’re straying far off from the topic of this post. This post is strictly about the final state of all Christians on the new earth, not about what happens from point a to point b (which could include a whole host of irrelevant topics to eschatology). That’s why I was being adamant in stating that dualism is not a foundational component of my eschatology. My eschatology would still hold even if I became a physicalist today. If you really want to discuss it, feel free to comment on a post where it’s more relevant.

  11. Traditionally, eschatology has been defined as the “doctrine of the last things” in relation to both the individual (e.g. death and the intermediate state) and to cosmic history (e.g. the return of Christ, the general resurrection, the final judgment, heaven, and hell).more to come. Been a busy week.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      The fact of the matter is, if you can’t show me how my views on dualism directly challenges my views on the new earth, then I won’t be engaging you on this topic. Please stick to the arguments I made in this post.

  12. There is no way for your “Christians to get from death to the new earth because you believe the vehicle for that is a disembodied conscious soul, but they don’t exist. The fact is, Mike, that believing in a conscious disembodied soul is a false, unscriptural doctrine which makes you a false teacher, and your church is a therefore a false religion which is why I discount the things that you say as from an unreliable source and of no consequence to our beliefs.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      I don’t understand why this is so difficult to imagine. A physicalist could easily argue that there is no intermediate state and that all Christians and old covenant believers are resurrected to the new earth. If you convert me to physicalism, I really don’t see how it would drastically change anything about my eschatology. You’ve yet to show me where i’m mistaken on this. So far, you’ve not shown how dualism or physicalism is directly relevant to the main topic of this post. It’s amazing to me that you can’t actually deal with the actual arguments I made in the podcast. Why can’t you just deal with my arguments?

      1. So tell me Mike, are you a physicalist? Yes or no? PLus, why then did you say that conscious disembodied souls are alive in heaven? Sort that out for me.

        Rotherham

  13. So since you have already established that you believe that there are souls in heaven, that necessarily makes you a duelist. So why do you keep appealing To physicalism In an AS IF YOU WERE manner? You can’t be both, can you? I need specifics so please stop with evasion. Be explicit please.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      I’m not appealing to it. I’m showing that the nature of the soul isn’t directly relevant to the point of this post. I’m a dualist, not a physicalist. And i’m not going to get into an argument over it until you can show how it directly affects the arguments I made in this post.

  14. I’ve told you before that getting from the point of death To the resurrection in the new earth requires your view of dualism which the Scriptures deny. You can’t populate the paradise earth without Your dualism, that’s how it’s relevant to your views about the new earth. It’s not that hard to realize.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      I don’t see how that follows logically. All you need to hold to is a resurrection of the body whereby all believers will be raised to the new earth. That view doesn’t stand or fall on dualism being true, so it’s not directly relevant here. Remember, i’m the one who laid out the arguments for the new earth without appealing to dualism. If I don’t need to appeal to it for my argument to hold, then I don’t see why you keep pressing me on it. Surely there’s some lower hanging fruit in my actual arguments you can go after?

  15. The resurrection of the body is unscriptural as well and I can demonstrate that for you. You should consider the article I twice posted a link tobelow about the. Soul and resurrection. All of this is relevant because your view has no vehicle to get to the nene earth. You can’t appeal to disembodied souls. And the fleshly body is NOT. The object of the resurrection. You can continue to play dumb about this but I’m sure the readers are getting the point. There is no way for YOU to get to the new earth based upon your theology.YOUR BRIDGE IS MISSING!!!

    Rotherham

    1. Isn’t your view the JW view? My plate is pretty full right now, so not sure when I can get to it. I don’t know why you can’t just deal with my arguments I made in the post. Seems like a reasonable thing to ask.

  16. There’s no need to itemize your points as the Bible removes the vehicle and the bridge you need to get to the new earth. Yes,my view is obviously the JW view. And once again, my posts are having trouble getting posted.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham,

      Both physicalism and dualism have “vehicles” to get a resurrected body to the new earth. If dualism were proven to be false, it would change nothing about my views on paradise earth. All it would change is the vehicle to get there. So I continue to be at a loss as to why you are targeting dualism. And i’m running out of patience on this. I’ve given you ample opportunity to explain why targeting dualism would directly affect my arguments when my arguments do not depend on dualism in any way. All my view depends on is the reality of a physical bodily resurrection, regardless of the vehicle. The vehicle is completely secondary to my arguments. I’m going to stop this here since it truly is off topic at this point. Either address my arguments I made in this post or don’t. I really don’t know why this is so hard for you to do.

      I’ll allow you to have the last word on this. But you won’t get any response from me unless it’s directly addressing my arguments.

  17. Your having trouble connecting dots,mike. If dualism is false then your theology is false and that’s all I really need to know. Since you believe that the vehicle to the new earth Is a disembodied Soul then you can’t say it makes no difference what you believe about that. Your personal vehicle is debunct. End of story. Plus, if the body is not The object of the resurrection then you as a person have no Bridge to get from this life to the next. What else is there to address to show that your view is in error? Everything in your view runs into these roadblocks. I will gladly discuss with you the NON resurrection of the body since that might be just as relevant to debunking your teaching on the new earth. I will post the first relevant portion of my article. It will be short enough so that I am sure you manage to read it.we can go from there. I will post it shortly.

    Rotherham

    1. Rotherham, I don’t know yet. Does it directly address any of my arguments in the podcast or does it not? If it doesn’t, it gets deleted. We’ve wasted so much time in this thread and you’ve not addressed a single argument I made in the podcast yet. So I don’t think your chances are very good here. Your time would be better spent reading a book on logic and argumentation, since you obviously don’t know how to directly answer and refute an argument.

  18. Well mike, I believe that you have no effective defense for your dualistic views and that’s why you are objecting so much to my inquiries. Due to that, I believe I will let the readers decide who has made The most effective arguments for their position. So I will curb my efforts to reach in this thread. However, I will begin to address the related article that you prepared quite a while back about the paradise earth. We’ll see how that one goes.

    Rother ham

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.