How did "resurrection at eschaton" become "immediate entrance to heaven"?

[capnkirk]

Moderators: If you decide that this thread belongs on a different forum, please move it (Of course, you will with or without my permission...so this flag only serves to show that I also am unsure just where to ask the question.)

All through Paul's letters, he speaks of the resurrection of the dead at the end of history. I can find no NT reference to the contemporary concept that people's souls go directly into some form of afterlife immediately after death. Though I can readily speculate the mythmaking process that "could" have led to this novel interpretation, I haven't read anything that would tell me where along the way this reinterpretation took place.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[judge]

Moderators: If you decide that this thread belongs on a different forum, please move it (Of course, you will with or without my permission...so this flag only serves to show that I also am unsure just where to ask the question.)

All through Paul's letters, he speaks of the resurrection of the dead at the end of history. I can find no NT reference to the contemporary concept that people's souls go directly into some form of afterlife immediately after death. Though I can readily speculate the mythmaking process that "could" have led to this novel interpretation, I haven't read anything that would tell me where along the way this reinterpretation took place.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

There definitely seems to be evidence that Paul did believe this. Try the leter to Phillipi where he says .."to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"

See also 2 Corinthians..."now we know that if our earthly house is destroyed we have another, impersishable in the heavens" (I am parapharsing here).

See also 1 Corinthians 15...."a seed must first die"

See aslo one of Peters letters wher he writes of putting aside his earthly tent.

Think also of the concept of "the dead" they might have had. The dead were seen as going to "the grave" or "sheol". Death was to have been abolished or overcome, thus the deqad were to be resurrected out of "sheol".

Resurrected to where? To Heaven, where else?

Prior to this John tells us .."no man had entered into heaven"

[capnkirk]

There definitely seems to be evidence that Paul did believe this. Try the leter to Phillipi where he says .."to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord"Unfortunately I cannot find the phrase you have quoted anywhere in Philippians...but I did find this:

I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death. and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Phil 3:10-11Here Paul is clearly talking about the conditional resurrection generally associated with the eschaton, not the contemporary automatic resurrection (whether heaven-bound or hell-bound).

See also 2 Corinthians..."now we know that if our earthly house is destroyed we have another, impersishable in the heavens" (I am paraphrasing here).This quote is in 2 Cor 5:1, but if you read on down to V 10 he continues: for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. To apply the immediate resurrection concept to this passage is tortured logic at best because once again, the appearance before the judgment seat is in complete accord with the concept he pronounces in 1 Thess regarding the judgement at the eschaton.

See also 1 Corinthians 15...."a seed must first die"Once again, from 1 Cor 15, beginning with verse 12, Paul describes the resurrection of the dead. In v 21, he continues: For since death came through a man (Christ), the resurrection shall also come through a man. Obvious reference to the return of Christ at the eschaton. v 22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, v23:But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits: then, when he comes, those who belong to him. v24: Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God. IMHO, all the above passages are utterly consistent in the concept of resurrection for Xtians only at the eschaton.

See aslo one of Peters letters wher he writes of putting aside his earthly tent.In view of the results of your previous references, this one will have to wait until you can quote specific chapte and verse.

Think also of the concept of "the dead" they might have had. The dead were seen as going to "the grave" or "sheol". Death was to have been abolished or overcome, thus the dead were to be resurrected out of "sheol".The Hebrew concept of Sheol had NO expectations of an afterlife until after the Hebrews' exposure to Zoroastrianism during the Exile. And it is exactly the Zoroastrian concept of resurrection of the dead at the end of history (the eschaton) that was still a bone of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus' time...and was the concept picked up by Paul from the HB, so the question remains...when did that concept get revised? My best guess right now is that it happened after the last canonical book of the NT was written, and it was accomplished by creative reading of scripture like you just offered to me.

Prior to this John tells us .."no man had entered into heaven"Now understand this passage in light of the above. If the resurrection does not occur until the eschaton, then this statement makes perfect sense.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Hazel-rah]

I don't usually jump into BC&H threads, but this popped into my head:

(Luke 23:39-43 NIV) One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" {40} But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? {41} We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." {42} Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." {43} Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

[judge]

Unfortunately I cannot find the phrase you have quoted anywhere in Philippians...but I did find this:

My bad..it also is in 2 cointhians 5.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=2+corinthians+5&version=NIV




Here Paul is clearly talking about the conditional resurrection generally associated with the eschaton, not the contemporary automatic resurrection (whether heaven-bound or hell-bound).
Really? what if one does not believe in "hell"? (like me)




This quote is in 2 Cor 5:1, but if you read on down to V 10 he continues: for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. To apply the immediate resurrection concept to this passage is tortured logic at best because once again, the appearance before the judgment seat is in complete accord with the concept he pronounces in 1 Thess regarding the judgement at the eschaton.

What concept?



Once again, from 1 Cor 15, beginning with verse 12, Paul describes the resurrection of the dead. In v 21, he continues: For since death came through a man (Christ), the resurrection shall also come through a man. Obvious reference to the return of Christ at the eschaton. v 22: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive, v23:But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits: then, when he comes, those who belong to him. v24: Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God. IMHO, all the above passages are utterly consistent in the concept of resurrection for Xtians only at the eschaton.
Will come?
What if this has already happened (as I believe)


In view of the results of your previous references, this one will have to wait until you can quote specific chapte and verse.

The Hebrew concept of Sheol had NO expectations of an afterlife until after the Hebrews' exposure to Zoroastrianism during the Exile. And it is exactly the Zoroastrian concept of resurrection of the dead at the end of history (the eschaton) that was still a bone of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus' time...and was the concept picked up by Paul from the HB, so the question remains...when did that concept get revised? My best guess right now is that it happened after the last canonical book of the NT was written, and it was accomplished by creative reading of scripture like you just offered to me.

Now understand this passage in light of the above. If the resurrection does not occur until the eschaton, then this statement makes perfect sense.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

The end of the "world" has already happened. The eschaton is in the past (for us).

All the best...judge March 29, the year of our Lord 2004 (or thereabouts) :)

[capnkirk]

My bad..it also is in 2 cointhians 5.
capnkirk: I have already responded to 2 Cor 5.

Really? what if one does not believe in "hell"? (like me)
capnkirk: That is a non-issue. If you would READ my response, you would see it is perfectly obvious that this phrase was a marginal gloss to clarify my meaning concerning the contemporary ALTERNATIVE to the resurrection at eschaton teaching. The HB and Paul hold that the deserving will be resurrected at the end of days, the undeserving will simply stay dead. The contemporary belief is that we either go to heaven or hell immediately after death. Your personal beliefs aside, how did Xtianity get from the former to the latter?

What concept?
capnkirk: See preceding.

Will come?
What if this has already happened (as I believe)

The end of the "world" has already happened. The eschaton is in the past (for us).

capnkirk: Now you're just trying to change the subject. Where in the NT does it hold that eschaton has already happened? If the eschaton has happened, when was the apocalyptic millenium? Sorry, I must have missed it!

All the best...judge March 29, the year of our Lord 2004 (or thereabouts) :)

[capnkirk]

I don't usually jump into BC&H threads, but this popped into my head:

(Luke 23:39-43 NIV) One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!" {40} But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? {41} We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." {42} Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." {43} Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."Thank you Hazel-rah. That is the closest that anyone has come thus far.

[judge]

Now you're just trying to change the subject. Where in the NT does it hold that eschaton has already happened? If the eschaton has happened, when was the apocalyptic millenium? Sorry, I must have missed it!


The eschaton was future to those who wrote of it in the NT but past to us.

[capnkirk]

The eschaton was future to those who wrote of it in the NT but past to us.You will need more than a declaration to make that statement stick. So, answer my question: How/when did this eschaton happen? Either demonstrate it with specific NT scriptural quotes or admit that the change in concept is post-biblical (i.e. AFTER the books of the NT were written!). You've been posting on this forum long enough to KNOW that such an unfounded assertion would be met with jeers, so back it up or take it back.

[judge]

You will need more than a declaration to make that statement stick..

I am not concerned whether the statement "sticks " or not.


So, answer my question: How/when did this eschaton happen? .


Around 70 a.d. and was associated with the destruction of Jerusalem.



Either demonstrate it with specific NT scriptural quotes.

Try Matthew 24 or Luke 21 these passages describe what was to happen 40 or so years later.


or admit that the change in concept is post-biblical (i.e. AFTER the books of the NT were written!). You've been posting on this forum long enough to KNOW that such an unfounded assertion would be met with jeers, so back it up or take it back.

No one can prove either way when these books were written. Unless you can prove when they were writen you cannot say whether the concepts arose before or after.

[judge]

The HB and Paul hold that the deserving will be resurrected at the end of days, the undeserving will simply stay dead.The contemporary belief is that we either go to heaven or hell immediately after death. Your personal beliefs aside, how did Xtianity get from the former to the latter?

Ok lets assume this is correct.
You will also notice that the HB and other jewish apocalyptic literature see the coming of the messiah, the resurrection of the dead and the end of the age coming in the same period.
You will also notice that Paul seems to be of the opinion that the end and the resurrection is almost upon them.
Can you agree with this? If we can I will try to explain how IMHO Xtianity got from the former to the latter.

[gregor]

Capn

You forget, judge is a preterist.

They are those people who read the olivet promise (paraphrased: "some standing here will not taste death till they see the son of god coming in his kingdom") as being written prior to 70 CE and being fulfilled with temple's destruction. Needless to say, there are many problems with this position and it is worthy of its own thread.

As to your topic, a few churches I know don't hold with an immediate heavenly entrance. They accept an end of history judgment, and hold that time simply stands still for the dead, so they don't know they've been dead for 1,500 years until the apocalypse. Talk about your special pleading!

[capnkirk]

Ok lets assume this is correct.
You will also notice that the HB and other jewish apocalyptic literature see the coming of the messiah, the resurrection of the dead and the end of the age coming in the same period.
You will also notice that Paul seems to be of the opinion that the end and the resurrection is almost upon them.
Can you agree with this? If we can I will try to explain how IMHO Xtianity got from the former to the latter.Yes, I agree with all of these stipulations, though I might word the following: "the resurrection of the dead and the end of the age coming in the same period" a little differently. To Wit: "that the resurrection of the dead will occur at the eschaton that divides the current age from the utopian apocalyptic age and is in fact its harbinger". I don't think that this produces any conflict with what you stipulated, but only adds more specificity to the sequence of events.

It seems to me that this is just exactly the concept that was in place when the NT was completed (and by that I mean written, as contrasted with compiled and canonized). That would place the transition to "immediate" resurrection to some period afterwards. I am seeking confirmation or refutation, with the supporting evidence. I have no bias or malice in favor of either conclusion; I simply want to understand how it got from A to B.

[capnkirk]

Capn

You forget, judge is a preterist.

They are those people who read the olivet promise (paraphrased: "some standing here will not taste death till they see the son of god coming in his kingdom") as being written prior to 70 CE and being fulfilled with temple's destruction. Needless to say, there are many problems with this position and it is worthy of its own thread.Thank you for theheads-up, but I think I had better let judge make that point on his own.

As to your topic, a few churches I know don't hold with an immediate heavenly entrance. They accept an end of history judgment, and hold that time simply stands still for the dead, so they don't know they've been dead for 1,500 years until the apocalypse. Talk about your special pleading!I agree...this would naturally follow from the NT (and for the HB as well) euphemism for death as being "those who sleep", and would seem to be a necessary feature of such an arrangement if they wanted the concept to be accepted by very many people. Ironically, that state is startlingly close to what we as atheists expect death to be, only it's permanent (i.e. consciousness ceases).

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Layman]

When Paul speaks of the resurrection, he is clearly envisioning a future event. It is not something that happens to a person when he or she dies. It is a specific point in the future that applies generally, to all who are dead and who are still living. However, Paul also believed that immediately upon the death of a Christian, that person went to be with Jesus. This is made most clear when he considers his own position as he if facing death.

Phi 1:21-24:

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake.

E.P. Sanders explains the two different doctrines, and their sequence, concisely:

Conceptually, this is different from the expectation of the transformation or resurrection of all believers at the coming of the Lord.... It envisages the ascent of each person's soul at death, rather than the transformation of the entire group of believers, whether living or dead, at Christ's return. Without posing these two conceptions as alternatives, Paul simply accepted them both. If he died, he would immediately be with Christ; at the end the Lord would return and bring his own, in a transformed state, to be with him.

Paul, at 31-32.

And this was not a Christian innovation. "The idea of a soul separable from the body, with different theories as to what might happen to it thereafter, was widespread in the varied Judaisms of the turn of the eras." Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, at 142. For example, the Testament of Abraham focuses on the immortal spirit:

The spirits of those who died in righteousness shall live and rejoice; their spirits shall not perish, nor their memorial from before the face of the Great One.

Other Christian literature also shows how early this view was:

1 Clement, perhaps the earliest of the noncanonical Christian writings:

Peter, through unrighteous envy, undured not one or two, but numerous labours. And when he had at length suffered martyrdom, he departed to the place of glory due to him.


And,


Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance...and suffering martyrdrom under the prefects. In that manner, he was removed from the world and went into the holy place.

Clement of Rome, 1.6.

Polycarp, when writing of Christiain martyrs in the early second century, wrote thus:

They are in their due place in the presence of the Lord, which whom they also suffered.

Polycarp, 1.35.

So too Justin Martyr:

The souls of the godly remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse place, waiting for the time of judgment.

Justin Martyr, 1.239.

And Iranaeus:

The Lord has taught with very great fullness that souls continue to exist. They do not do this by passing from bodhy to body. Rather, they preserve the same form as that of the body to which they are adapted... The Lord states that the rich man recognized Lazarus after death, as well as Abraham.... Formt hese things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man (so that they may be recognized), and that they retian the memory of things in this world.

1.411.

[capnkirk]

So, Layman, the bottom line is that it requires the same level of tortured convoluted pretzel logic that reconciliation of the trinity required. It is simply the force-fitting of multiple incompatible concepts from different cultures into a doctrine that has enough superficial philosophical attractiveness to gain acceptance by those not particularly logically inclined.

Thank you Layman. You guys can continue to post to this thread, but I have heard enough, so this will be my last post to it.

Ahead warp factor 5, Mr.Sulu,

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[judge]

It seems to me that this is just exactly the concept that was in place when the NT was completed (and by that I mean written, as contrasted with compiled and canonized). That would place the transition to "immediate" resurrection to some period afterwards. I am seeking confirmation or refutation, with the supporting evidence. I have no bias or malice in favor of either conclusion; I simply want to understand how it got from A to B.

Thanks to Layman for the quotes he provided. :)

Ok Cap'n I think I may be able to help with some further stuff but if I might can I first get your thoughts on these questions.

1.Where do you think adam would have lived had he eaten from the tree of life and gained etrnal life, Heaven or earth?

2. Where would those resurected in Daniel 12 have lived , heaven or earth?

3. And lastly Jesus told the saducees that "in the resurrection they are like the angels in heaven". Where would these resurrected folk have dwelt, heaven or earth?

Thanks

[Layman]

So, Layman, the bottom line is that it requires the same level of tortured convoluted pretzel logic that reconciliation of the trinity required. It is simply the force-fitting of multiple incompatible concepts from different cultures into a doctrine that has enough superficial philosophical attractiveness to gain acceptance by those not particularly logically inclined.

Thank you Layman. You guys can continue to post to this thread, but I have heard enough, so this will be my last post to it.

Ahead warp factof 5, Ro Sulu,

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

What are the incompatible concepts?

[capnkirk]

Thanks to Layman for the quotes he provided. :)

Ok Cap'n I think I may be able to help with some further stuff but if I might can I first get your thoughts on these questions.

1.Where do you think adam would have lived had he eaten from the tree of life and gained etrnal life, Heaven or earth?

2. Where would those resurected in Daniel 12 have lived , heaven or earth?

3. And lastly Jesus told the saducees that "in the resurrection they are like the angels in heaven". Where would these resurrected folk have dwelt, heaven or earth?

ThanksMy response will serve to demonstrate just how far apart we are. I think it is a complete waste of time to speculate upon mythical characters as if they were historical people. I have no doubt of the mythical nature of Adam. Those that were "resurrected" in Daniel 12 have no more reality than Cinderella's fairy godmother. And lastly, any words found in the mouth of Jesus in any scripture were but there by plain ordinary people. Your example is no different than the account of Jesus' private prayer in the garden at Gethsemene, except that the latter is easier to recognize as necessarily composed by the author. The only creatures dwelling in Heaven are the imaginary ones created by people.

I only asked you to state your rationale, I'm sorry if you took that for an invitation to convince me that Heaven, Hell, and the afterlife are real. I sought only understanding, not consensus agreement or tacit validation.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[judge]

My response will serve to demonstrate just how far apart we are. I think it is a complete waste of time to speculate upon mythical characters as if they were historical people. I have no doubt of the mythical nature of Adam. Those that were "resurrected" in Daniel 12 have no more reality than Cinderella's fairy godmother. And lastly, any words found in the mouth of Jesus in any scripture were but there by plain ordinary people. Your example is no different than the account of Jesus' private prayer in the garden at Gethsemene, except that the latter is easier to recognize as necessarily composed by the author. The only creatures dwelling in Heaven are the imaginary ones created by people.

That may be so, but if you wish to understand how such and such a view came about then perhaps you will have to view things from the perspective of those involved in bringing this about.

If you want to know why believers came to certain conclusions you may have to put yourself in their shoes.


I only asked you to state your rationale, I'm sorry if you took that for an invitation to convince me that Heaven, Hell, and the afterlife are real. I sought only understanding, not consensus agreement or tacit validation.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

If you want to underatnd "my rationale" then you will have to be prepared to "put yourself in my shoes" rather than stating that one view is "obvious" or another view is "illogical."

I am not trying to convince you heaven and hell are real but rather help you to understand what how early believers views on these things influenced later "doctrine".
It is just that it may be a little more complicated than you miht think

[capnkirk]

What are the incompatible concepts?They are for another time and another place. I have no interest in getting into a long and fruitless discussion about who's right. All I wanted was to find a theist who could explain how the resurrection as described in the NT could be reconciled with the contemporary concept that people have souls that go to heaven or hell "for eternity" immediately after corporeal death. Nobody could. Instead I get scriptures quoted in support of the latter that clearly are talking about the former and other similarly unenlightening responses.

My studies have taught me that the concept of an immortal soul was introduced into both Judaism and Greek philosophy via Persian Zoroastrianism in the 6 centuries BC, as were the concept of heaven, hell, and the afterlife. Zorozstrianism also provided the concept of the eschaton and the ensuing utopian apocalyptic age. Both the Jews and the Greeks modified and adapted these concepts, then through Xtianity attempted to recombine them, albiet poorly.

I don't expect you to agree with this much less support it, nor is there anything in the scriptures that will make me believe in an afterlife or an eschaton beyond their being interesting intellectual concepts (hence the characterization of a discussion over who's right as "fruitless"). My OP was an invitation for someone to shed some light on when the change in general perception and emphasis between resurrection and afterlife took place. What I have distilled from the most recent responses is that they are two different (but non-conflicting) things...which introduces a whole new set of problems. Eternity in paradise cannot be reconciled with a resurrection at some future date. One can't be in Paradise and then resurrected at the same time. If the resurrection is spiritual rather than physical, then it is unnecessary because that kind of resurrection had already taken place at death. That makes the two concepts incompatible short of resorting to the kind of tortured logic that was necessary to create the Trinity doctrine. I was and am determined not to argue, and would not have posted them here at all except that you asked me to.

Now if you'll excuse me while I unsubscribe to this thread.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Layman]

How can they be both incomptible and nonconflicting?

The term resurrection only applies the physical raising and transformation of the body. It is not a term used to describe the spirit or soul surviving death.

At the end of all time God will reorder the spiritual and the material worlds. It seems to me it will be some kind of merger of the two. At that time, a new body will be given to those immortal spirits already dwelling in "heaven."

It seems you have misunderstood the terms involved.

[capnkirk]

After one last review of this whole thread, I will say that Layman's initial response said it clearly enough. The attitude of the Xtian fathers was to simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility and to blindly accept both doctrines at face value. What more need be said.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Layman]

After one last review of this whole thread, I will say that Layman's initial response said it clearly enough. The attitude of the Xtian fathers was to simply ignore the fundamental incompatibility and to blindly accept both doctrines at face value. What more need be said.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

You could try and answer some of my questions and respond to my comments.

But if you prefer talking to yourself, that is fine. :)

[capnkirk]

How can they be both incomptible and nonconflicting?

The term resurrection only applies the physical raising and transformation of the body. It is not a term used to describe the spirit or soul surviving death.

At the end of all time God will reorder the spiritual and the material worlds. It seems to me it will be some kind of merger of the two. At that time, a new body will be given to those immortal spirits already dwelling in "heaven."

It seems you have misunderstood the terms involved.Then eternity ends at the resurrection...when your soul gets called back to active duty so to speak for a tour in a new body. Sorry, but that's not eternity.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[judge]

My studies have taught me that the concept of an immortal soul was introduced into both Judaism and Greek philosophy via Persian Zoroastrianism in the 6 centuries BC,

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Well your studies are clearly wrong!
Adam (whether you believe in him or not) was offered the chance at immortality in the earliest part of the HB.

[Layman]

Then eternity ends at the resurrection...when your soul gets called back to active duty so to speak for a tour in a new body. Sorry, but that's not eternity.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

You are quite wrong. The soul would not be eternal if it died with the body. It lives through the present age and then gets reunited with a transformed body for the next age.

[spin]

On immortality of the soul coming from Zoroastrianism:

Well your studies are clearly wrong!
Adam (whether you believe in him or not) was offered the chance at immortality in the earliest part of the HB.

Unless you can come up with a viable historical dating for the writing of the Adam story, your "clearly wrong" has no basis whatsoever.

(You also apparently confuse eternal life with immortal soul.)


spin

[Gary Hudson]

The death and resurrection of the New Testament is allegorical for what in modern terms is called ego death and rebirth (enlightenment).

Archaic man defined “what is� as the hierarchy of spirit; modern man defines “what is� as the spectrum of consciousness.

The authors of the New Testament provided archaic man with a lesson plan that included instruction on how live a whole (Holy) life, a description (allegorical) of the process of awakening and a manual (the Book of Revelation) on how to attain the Parousia of God (how to awaken).

Gary

[capnkirk]

OK, let's reassemble the most recent part of the dialog:

Originally Posted by Layman:
How can they be both incomptible and nonconflicting?

The term resurrection only applies the physical raising and transformation of the body. It is not a term used to describe the spirit or soul surviving death.

At the end of all time God will reorder the spiritual and the material worlds. It seems to me it will be some kind of merger of the two. At that time, a new body will be given to those immortal spirits already dwelling in "heaven."

It seems you have misunderstood the terms involved.

Originally Posted by capnkirk:
Then eternity ends at the resurrection...when your soul gets called back to active duty so to speak for a tour in a new body. Sorry, but that's not eternity.

Originally Posted by Layman:
You are quite wrong. The soul would not be eternal if it died with the body. It lives through the present age and then gets reunited with a transformed body for the next age.

Your reply is non-responsive. You set up the strawman argument that 'The soul would not be eternal if it died...'. Well, duh! That was not the point of contention. You had earlier said, "At that time, a new body will be given to those immortal spirits already dwelling in 'heaven.'." That is specifically compared to 'being called back to active duty'. If I were a soul totally at peace in 'heaven' and god came by and told me that he was giving everybody new bodies, I wouldn't tend to consider that an improvement on the (as advertized) perfection of my current heavenly state! So such a deal couldn't come from a perfect god but rather from the flawed minds of men trying to imagine the implications of what their antecedents imagined and wrote down as fact.

The fundamental conflict is between the promise of spending ETERNITY in heaven, and having that eternity INTERRUPTED with having to take up a corporeal body again (even an immortal one)! You can't have it both ways (at least not rationally). PERIOD!

[gregor]

Were the dead prophets who climbed from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem upon Jesus' death soulless shells? Did their souls return from heaven to their bodies for the afternoon stroll?

As I indicated, at least some churches are currently trying to square the disparate thoughts of immediacy and "end of time" by saying that it is a matter of perspective. For a dead body/resting soul, there is no "time," so it appears immediate for the dead, although it may appear to take time to those still living.

[capnkirk]

The death and resurrection of the New Testament is allegorical for what in modern terms is called ego death and rebirth (enlightenment).

Archaic man defined “what is� as the hierarchy of spirit; modern man defines “what is� as the spectrum of consciousness.

The authors of the New Testament provided archaic man with a lesson plan that included instruction on how live a whole (Holy) life, a description (allegorical) of the process of awakening and a manual (the Book of Revelation) on how to attain the Parousia of God (how to awaken).Gary,

Yes, modern man is no longer satisfied with the definitions provided for archaic man, and has had to reinterpret scripture to make it intellectually inoffensive enough to be accepted. I say that modern atheists have had to take that process a step farther in order to accomplish the same acceptability.

The modern atheist looks at the 'lesson plan', accepts the wisdom of most of the life rules (how to treat others, what is justice, what is compassion, etc.), then throws out the rest as "packaging" materials. He denies the efficacy of prayer, the concept of worship, and the expectation there will be any justice in this reality that we don't create ourselves. Then he goes through life trying to live up to his ideals, just like a theist does.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[capnkirk]

Were the dead prophets who climbed from their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem upon Jesus' death soulless shells? Did their souls return from heaven to their bodies for the afternoon stroll?Good point...and it sets up the argument that follows.

As I indicated, at least some churches are currently trying to square the disparate thoughts of immediacy and "end of time" by saying that it is a matter of perspective. For a dead body/resting soul, there is no "time," so it appears immediate for the dead, although it may appear to take time to those still living.I agree that they have tried. While that might reconcile the now several thousand year wait for resurrection, the clear implication is that no one has made it to heaven yet...since they're all still waiting. That is why the 'prederist' argument was formulated. It attempts to moot the conflict by declaring that the eschaton has already happened.

While these arguments seem to solve the conflict when viewed exclusively from the perspective of living/dead mortals, it completely falls apart when you change the perspective to souls currently residing in heaven (eternally) now being "given" new bodies so as to continue eternally with an immortal body, as described in my previous post (above).

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Layman]

The fundamental conflict is between the promise of spending ETERNITY in heaven, and having that eternity INTERRUPTED with having to take up a corporeal body again (even an immortal one)! You can't have it both ways (at least not rationally). PERIOD!

He wasn't having it both ways. Although we will eternally be with God, heaven and earth will be remade into something new. In that something new we will have new bodies. Christians that is, not you unbelievers. ;)

[capnkirk]

He wasn't having it both ways. Although we will eternally be with God, heaven and earth will be remade into something new. In that something new we will have new bodies. Christians that is, not you unbelievers.I was only about 13 when, while listening to the minister tout the wonders of heaven, I realized that I really didn't have any interest in going. That was the beginning of the end of my belief in God, Jesus, et al.

That bit of theistic doublespeak (subtly changing "with god" for "heaven") certainly hasn't done anything to rekindle my interest in heaven...even if by chance you are right.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Layman]

I was only about 13 when, while listening to the minister tout the wonders of heaven, I realized that I really didn't have any interest in going. That was the beginning of the end of my belief in God, Jesus, et al.

That bit of theistic doublespeak (subtly changing "with god" for "heaven") certainly hasn't done anything to rekindle my interest in heaven...even if by chance you are right.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

There is no doubletalk. Though some modern Christians may think "heaven" is the ultimate goal, Christian theology for 2000 years has recognized its only a termporary abode. God will remake heaven and earth at the end of time.

If you are going to prove some sort of conflict between the belief in a soul that survives death and the resurrection of the body, please do so specifically. With references from Paul would be preferable since he is the one you accuse of contracitory opinions.

It seems that neither in the abstract or in Paul's practice is their a conflict between the soul surviving death and a resurrection of the body.

[capnkirk]

If you are going to prove some sort of conflict between the belief in a soul that survives death and the resurrection of the body, please do so specifically. With references from Paul would be preferable since he is the one you accuse of contracitory opinions.Much earlier in this thread, Judge and I went through several quotes from Paul's letters. Go back and read through them if you wish.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Layman]

Much earlier in this thread, Judge and I went through several quotes from Paul's letters. Go back and read through them if you wish.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.


Earlier you didn't even think Paul believed in an eternal soul. Now you claim to have laid out the scriptures that proved it?

This vague response is no response at all.

[capnkirk]

Earlier you didn't even think Paul believed in an eternal soul. Now you claim to have laid out the scriptures that proved it?

This vague response is no response at all.layman,

In my OP I posed this question: "All through Paul's letters, he speaks of the resurrection of the dead at the end of history. I can find no NT reference to the contemporary concept that people's souls go directly into some form of afterlife immediately after death. Though I can readily speculate the mythmaking process that "could" have led to this novel interpretation, I haven't read anything that would tell me where along the way this reinterpretation took place."

That places the burden of proof on you, not on me. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/spezial/Fool/box2.gif I have not laid out scriptures to prove anything. Judge did...and I responded, that is all.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

[Steven Carr]

He wasn't having it both ways. Although we will eternally be with God, heaven and earth will be remade into something new. In that something new we will have new bodies.

The resurrected (sorry, resuscitated) saints in Matthew must also have had new bodies, unless 'Dawn of the Dead' is actually a hard-hitting documentary.

Presumably they had already gone to be with Christ, and must have been a little upset to get back their natural bodies, and go through all the trauma of dying again (or possibly even backsliding and losing the place in Heaven they already had has)

[Layman]

The resurrected (sorry, resuscitated) saints in Matthew must also have had new bodies, unless 'Dawn of the Dead' is actually a hard-hitting documentary.

Presumably they had already gone to be with Christ, and must have been a little upset to get back their natural bodies, and go through all the trauma of dying again (or possibly even backsliding and losing the place in Heaven they already had has)

I do not know if Paul was aware of that episode in the Gospel of Matthew.

[Steven Carr]

I do not know if Paul was aware of that episode in the Gospel of Matthew.

Is this because Paul fails to mention it?

Paul hardly seems to be an expert on resurrection or resuscitation if he is not aware of the most recent examples of resuscitated bodies.

Why do you consider Paul an authority on the subject if he is ignorant of what happened to those particular bodies which had been planted into the ground?

Did those resuscitated people get new bodies?

[Layman]

Is this because Paul fails to mention it?

That and its not in Mark or Q. He may have. I do not know.

Paul hardly seems to be an expert on resurrection or resuscitation if he is not aware of the most recent examples of resuscitated bodies.

I'm not sure what you mean by being an expert.

Why do you consider Paul an authority on the subject if he is ignorant of what happened to those particular bodies which had been planted into the ground?

Christians believe Paul was an apostle. His authority derives from his commission.

Did those resuscitated people get new bodies?

I do not know and have not given it much thought.

[Steven Carr]

That and its not in Mark or Q. He may have. I do not know.


Lots of things are not in Paul, Mark or Q. Is triple non-attestation a criterion for inauthenticity?

It seems these resuscitated corpses did get new bodies. Their bodies must have been rather decomposed otherwise.

But were they with Christ before they rose from their graves?

[Layman]

Lots of things are not in Paul, Mark or Q. Is triple non-attestation a criterion for inauthenticity?

I did not say it was inauthentic. I said that I did not know whether Paul was aware of it.

It seems these resuscitated corpses did get new bodies. Their bodies must have been rather decomposed otherwise.

Perhaps. I'm not sure what kind of bodies they were, though.

But were they with Christ before they rose from their graves?

That is an interesting question.

[Layman]

layman,

In my OP I posed this question: "All through Paul's letters, he speaks of the resurrection of the dead at the end of history. I can find no NT reference to the contemporary concept that people's souls go directly into some form of afterlife immediately after death. Though I can readily speculate the mythmaking process that "could" have led to this novel interpretation, I haven't read anything that would tell me where along the way this reinterpretation took place."

That places the burden of proof on you, not on me. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/spezial/Fool/box2.gif I have not laid out scriptures to prove anything. Judge did...and I responded, that is all.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

I already provided you with the references from Paul showing he believed in the continuation of the soul. You then said that Paul held incompatible ideas on the subject. You have yet to prove tha the two ideas are incompatible.