Debating the Resurrection

[_Z_]

For early Christians and some Jews, resurrection meant being given back one’s body or possibly God creating a new similar body after death,

the latter makes a little sense, the resurrection of all the dead upon earth does not. we are left though with the idea that the righteous are born again [problematic ethically], you would need a big planet to put everyone on and what then would happen as we multiply? eventually we are all standing on each others heads.

the only logical conclusion i can think of is of a rebirth in eternity ~ but with a physical body?

then there is the problem of the immortality, after a while everything would have been done a zillion times over, and why would we need to do anything ~ apathy would set in, i can only imagine what that would be like after a few million years, but it wouldn’t be heaven i am sure.
for me ‘heaven’ would be without a material body nor its concerns.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by _Z_

then there is the problem of the immortality, after a while everything would have been done a zillion times over

I think you might be assuming that the being has memory of previous manifestations. If not, Groundhog Day need never occur.

s.

[_Z_]

I think you might be assuming that the being has memory of previous manifestations. If not, Groundhog Day need never occur.

not at all, i am assuming that in one lifetime after a few million years everything would have been done to exhaustion ~ and that would be like groundhog day except each day would be new but with the same old stuff going on in one way or another. the trick for immortality is to not do things.

[Thomas]

Hi Z —

Well we're discussing a Mystery, not a known quantity ... so there are no definitive answers, but there are firm guidelines.

Originally Posted by _Z_

the resurrection of all the dead upon earth does not.

Why not?

Originally Posted by _Z_

we are left though with the idea that the righteous are born again [problematic ethically],

Why?

Originally Posted by _Z_

you would need a big planet to put everyone on and what then would happen as we multiply?

Although bodily, we will be both immortal and incorruptible, and might discover that our material bodies are not bound by the physical world in quite the way they are now; that we have no authority over our physical being is because we are subject to temporality and corruption ... we are subject to the material at present, there is no need to assume we shall be under the same determination ... size, for one ...

Reproduction, as we know it, might well be a post-Adamic consequence, and not a given. Immortal and incorruptible also implies we shall rediscover what we think 'physical' to be ... as one can assume we will have overcome concupiscence, sexual relations as we understand it might not even be on the agenda ... bit of a rude awakening for those who think that sexual orientation/activity is a primary marker of their being ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

the only logical conclusion i can think of is of a rebirth in eternity ~ but with a physical body?

That's what the man said.

Originally Posted by _Z_

then there is the problem of the immortality, after a while everything would have been done a zillion times over, and why would we need to do anything ~ apathy would set in,

No, apathy is a post-Adamic condition — a negative state, so no apathy, no sloth, no gluttony ...

There is a strong argument that the good never repeats itself precisely, so no, no 'eternal repetition', each 'time' different ... and the source of infinite delight ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

i can only imagine what that would be like after a few million years, but it wouldn’t be heaven i am sure.

Again, looking from the viewpoint of the damaged, we must make sure we do not project that damage into our future.

Look at it another way ... that which we call God is Infinite and inexhaustible, so if you began a journey into God, there is no end, and no exhaustion ... just constant unfolding, constant joy at the discovery ... every moment new ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

for me ‘heaven’ would be without a material body nor its concerns.

But that would be only half the picture, wouldn't it? That assumes God cannot create a perfect material realm ...

... and you would no longer be human ...

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by _Z_

not at all, i am assuming that in one lifetime after a few million years everything would have been done to exhaustion ~ and that would be like groundhog day except each day would be new but with the same old stuff going on in one way or another. the trick for immortality is to not do things.

I bow to your knowledge of how the universe will pan out over eternity

s.

[_Z_]

thomas hi i mean none of this as an offence

Why not?

too many people if all were resurrected. when they have children but don’t die then have more and their children have some etc etc ~ you eventually end up with a very overpopulated planet. this is why earthly resurrection is illogical as i see it.

Why?

because 'righteousness itself is divisive' , and no people are truly evil [or at most very few].

Although bodily, we will be both immortal and incorruptible, and might discover that our material bodies are not bound by the physical world in quite the way they are now; that we have no authority over our physical being is because we are subject to temporality and corruption ... we are subject to the material at present, there is no need to assume we shall be under the same determination ... size, for one ...

our material bodies are our physical bodies ~ in this world anyway. this form you describe could not be of this [temporal] universe. as for size, when we are dealing with eternals it doesn’t make any difference, eventually given limited space we would occupy ever centimetre of it then end up standing on each others heads ect.

Reproduction, as we know it, might well be a post-Adamic consequence, and not a given.

a world without children ~ is that heaven. and god would get no new souls? ...and post adamic ~ what happened to [universal] evolution!

as one can assume we will have overcome concupiscence, sexual relations as we understand it might not even be on the agenda

so what will we do in this ‘heaven’, just stand around or something, or will we have some kind non touchy sex lols like wow that would be the most fun ever.

No, apathy is a post-Adamic condition — a negative state, so no apathy, no sloth, no gluttony

...and no comparativity! ignorance is bliss eh? this sounds like a mental catatonic state to me ~ or something very near. apathy is a feeling resultant of the given effect, it doesnt have legs [it isnt its own entity].

Look at it another way ... that which we call God is Infinite and inexhaustible

how about universal!?

so if you began a journey into God, there is no end, and no exhaustion ... just constant unfolding, constant joy at the discovery ... every moment new ...

yes, oh look another pretty buttercup.

But that would be only half the picture, wouldn’t it?

the human form is but a vessel and a tool, i am whole regardless.

That assumes God cannot create a perfect material realm

so he messed up this time? [with the present creation] personally i think it takes some kind of wisdom to create a world exactly as it is, its depth is just too profound to allow people to get past the apparent evel and limitedness of it all.

thanks

z

[Thomas]

Hi Z –

Originally Posted by _Z_

... when they have children but don’t die then have more and their children have some etc etc

I doubt they will have children.

Originally Posted by _Z_

because 'righteousness itself is divisive' , and no people are truly evil [or at most very few].

Justice isn't divisive. In my understanding, everyone will be included except those who don't want to.

Originally Posted by _Z_

our material bodies are our physical bodies ~ in this world anyway. this form you describe could not be of this [temporal] universe. as for size, when we are dealing with eternals it doesn’t make any difference, eventually given limited space we would occupy ever centimetre of it then end up standing on each others heads ect.

Again, I don't see why reproduction should figure. There is a clue when the Pharisees tried to catch Jesus out on a smart-alec question — If a woman has had two husbands, who is she married to in the afterlife? — His answer was, they're thinking about it the wrong way.

Christ resurrected a physical body, but walked through walls, appeared and disappeared ... I think we shall be able to determine the form our physical presence takes ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

a world without children ~ is that heaven. and god would get no new souls? ...and post adamic ~ what happened to [universal] evolution!

Universal evolution is no part of the Christian paradigm. And heaven will not be according to human sentimentality ... God has no need of souls, and there may well be an infinite number of creations ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

so what will we do in this ‘heaven’, just stand around or something, or will we have some kind non touchy sex lols like wow that would be the most fun ever.

There you go ... I doubt heaven will correspond in any way to the current culture's idea of 'a good time'! ... but if that's all a person chooses to be, then they exclude themselves from heaven, from life ... that's simple justice, nothing divisive about that.

Originally Posted by _Z_

...and no comparativity! ignorance is bliss eh? this sounds like a mental catatonic state to me ~ or something very near. apathy is a feeling resultant of the given effect, it doesnt have legs [it isnt its own entity].

What, no gain and loss? No envy? No jealousy? ... Do you suppose 'the seven deadly sins' will exist in paradise? Try considering an existence which finds its contentment in itself, in Union with its source, without the need for external reference, that need was what contributed to the Fall in the first place. Without the need to compare itself to another to see how well its doing ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

yes, oh look another pretty buttercup.

Precisely! Try and grasp the notion that complacency is a fault, or at least a mark of the finite (which has limits). Only man grows bored with miracles ... The trick is to look beyond one's own limitations.

Originally Posted by _Z_

the human form is but a vessel and a tool, i am whole regardless.

A vessel of what?

Originally Posted by _Z_

so he messed up this time? [with the present creation]

No, we did.

You seem to want to define the next world according to all the faults, failings and shortcomings that define this world for you ... I don't think that's the case.

The question then is can one conceive of 'a better place' and if yes, is one willing to make an effort in this life, or does one choose to look after numero uno, take what is offered and grab up what one can.

The justice of that then determines where we consign ourselves to ... those who make an effort get a reward, those who make no effort, no reward.

How is that divisive?

Or does one continue to insist that such is unfair?

I don't think God determines our fate, I think we do.

Thomas

[Dream]

Who are Madigan and Levenson? I thought everybody at least pondered resurrection as a possibility!

Z, you say there's not enough room for everyone on the planet, but your assumption is that I will be resurrected. If I'm not resurrected, then there's that much more empty space for someone else. The same could be said for anyone. What these 3 scholars from the first thread are implying is that Jews and Christians share a common idea of salvation for only part of the world's population.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Cliff —
The point is, they were giants, and cos we can't attain even the 'old order', we cry 'sour grapes' and invent 'new orders' (or new denominations, indeed) tailored to our shortcomings ...

Thomas

Here I disagree. I think that having a blind adherence to an ancient text just because it is ancient borders on the superstitious, not to say idolatrous.

There are plenty of inspired and wise authors living today, capable of building up the light by drawing on the experience and wisdom accumulated over the centuries and from across cultures. We are capable of far more subtle thinking now than in the past. Questions which caused deep divisions before now seem trivial or irrelevant.

[_Z_]

thomas
thank you for your reply, sorry if i seamed somewhat vaccuous in my last replies.

I doubt they will have children.

would be a shame.

Justice isn’t divisive

it is. its the classic two edged sword. to make a clear decision you have to divide then cast one off against the other.
‘judge not for thou shall be judged thyself’.

Again, I don’t see why reproduction should figure. There is a clue when the Pharisees tried to catch Jesus out on a smart-alec question — If a woman has had two husbands, who is she married to in the afterlife? — His answer was, they’re thinking about it the wrong way.

i thought he meant that they should not have two wives to begin with.

Christ resurrected a physical body, but walked through walls, appeared and disappeared ... I think we shall be able to determine the form our physical presence takes ...

perhaps he was a ghost. if he was not physical he could do this, but physical bodies obey the laws of physics.

Universal evolution is no part of the Christian paradigm. And heaven will not be according to human sentimentality ... God has no need of souls, and there may well be an infinite number of creations ...

good point about infinite creations [infinite amount would be impossible but i take your point]. as for sentimentality, we are made in his image so what we like is what he likes to some degree [not in the same extreme] ~ are we not his children.

There you go ... I doubt heaven will correspond in any way to the current culture’s idea of ‘a good time’! ... but if that’s all a person chooses to be, then they exclude themselves from heaven, from life ... that’s simple justice, nothing divisive about that.

it is divisive, it excludes, which is dividing even if by choice. i see the point about ‘a good time’, i don’t think it is what people choose to be, we have sex to procreate [as well as for pleasure]. is it so bad ~ or is it bad when taken to extremes?

Do you suppose ‘the seven deadly sins’ will exist in paradise?

no i think they are an excess and people will be more balanced.

Try considering an existence which finds its contentment in itself, in Union with its source, without the need for external reference

i can see that, though it depends upon what we see as the source. without comparisons we wouldn’t know what good is ~ or what virtually anything is. to arrive at that state we would have to be innocent of virtually everything we know, so would our memory would be erased? if so then how do we define what and who we are or what anything is, we would be a blank state.

Precisely! Try and grasp the notion that complacency is a fault, or at least a mark of the finite (which has limits). Only man grows bored with miracles ... The trick is to look beyond one’s own limitations.

point grasped , although i didn’t mean it like that. we would become indifferent to it all [to the in-different]. sure i can look beyond earthly limitations, that is precisely why i believe in spiritual reincarnation in a spiritual eternity ~ a paradise that firstly is a mirror of the earth [but not physical in the same way].

all these things point to something other than immortality upon planet earth!

A vessel of what?

‘me’, the mind and mind-body [spirit and soul], the same thing that is the universal essence of all things.

No, we did.

No, we did not, we didn’t create the universe and are probably not even the only beings in it, and Adam and eve is a metaphor, we evolved!

You seem to want to define the next world according to all the faults, failings and shortcomings that define this world for you ... I don’t think that’s the case.

no i don’t i think we act according to our environment to a large degree, the things we do are usually necessary or a reaction to real events. i like to think of this life as like a school for eternity, where we wont have the same demands made of us and will be wiser and more balanced having lived a few incarnations on earth. most faults and failings arent faults and failings.

The justice of that then determines where we consign ourselves to ... those who make an effort get a reward, those who make no effort, no reward.

ignorance then is damned?

How is that divisive?
Or does one continue to insist that such is unfair?
I don’t think God determines our fate, I think we do.

it is divisive because it judges on ignorance of truth [if true], it judges one kind of effort against another and says that we are judged upon making our own choices even when we are faced with a lack of evidence. we determine our fate? it is more a balance between the individual and the environment, and we are born ignorant thence only knowing the given environment. you could argue the case if it were all present and we could make a choice, but you are saying that we are to be judged when one half of the equasion is not apparent or possibly does not exist.

[Thomas]

Hi Z —

This is all speculation ... just so we're clear ... but assuming the thread refers to the JudeoChristian Tradition, then I am coming from the Christian doctrine of Resurrection.

Originally Posted by _Z_

would be a shame.

The urge to have children, apart from self-gratification and the equivalent of a dog peeing on lamp-posts, is to do with continuity and the will to live ... if the being is immortal/eternal, that would suggest the urge is eliminated, so I'm suggesting 'shame' is if we view it from a finite/contingent viewpoint?

Originally Posted by _Z_

it is. its the classic two edged sword. to make a clear decision you have to divide then cast one off against the other.
‘judge not for thou shall be judged thyself’.

We are not to judge ... that is Christ's prerogative. But there will be a judgement. To say otherwise is to say Creation is void of purpose or meaning ... and Scripture — of any religion or spiritual tradition — is a complete waste of time ...

Originally Posted by _Z_

perhaps he was a ghost. if he was not physical he could do this, but physical bodies obey the laws of physics.

Nope, the Resurrection was physical. He can transcend the laws of physics — they exist through Him, not the other way round.

Originally Posted by _Z_

as for sentimentality, we are made in his image so what we like is what he likes to some degree [not in the same extreme] ~ are we not his children.

Actually no, we become such through filiation. We are shaped by the finite and the contingent, which He is not, that which is the product of finitude and contingency applies to us, not to God. God is subject to no limitation, so there is no cause of sentimentality in the Deity. He is the Unmoved Mover. He is not moved.

Originally Posted by _Z_

it is divisive, it excludes, which is dividing even if by choice.

Then what's the alternative?

Originally Posted by _Z_

i can see that, though it depends upon what we see as the source.

Well in this context the source is JudeoChristian doctrine. If you discount that, then it's a meaningless discussion. Resurrection with a Cap 'R' implies the Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by _Z_

without comparisons we wouldn’t know what good is

There's a difference between knowing and doing. We do not have to do what is wrong to know it is wrong, nor not know what is right.

Originally Posted by _Z_

that is precisely why i believe in spiritual reincarnation in a spiritual eternity ~ a paradise that firstly is a mirror of the earth [but not physical in the same way].

OK. But that is not what the Christian message is, so you're into your own conjecture here.

Originally Posted by _Z_

‘me’, the mind and mind-body [spirit and soul], the same thing that is the universal essence of all things.

Again, this is your conjecture, not what the books are saying. In Christian terms, the physical is not a disposable or an inconsequential order of being.

If God is Absolute, then He can realize Himself in the finite ... if He can't, then He's not God.

Originally Posted by _Z_

No, we did not, we didn’t create the universe and are probably not even the only beings in it, and Adam and eve is a metaphor, we evolved!

Well again, we're at crossed purposes. You're arguing a Christian doctrine from a non-Christian viewpoint.

From the Christian perspective, God created the world, and we introduced sin ... evolution is secondary and subsequent to all that. Physical offers a 'how', metaphysics offer a 'why'.

Originally Posted by _Z_

... i like to think of this life as like a school for eternity, where we wont have the same demands made of us and will be wiser and more balanced having lived a few incarnations on earth. most faults and failings arent faults and failings.

Again, not Christian, so doesn't apply in the case the authors are making.

Originally Posted by _Z_

ignorance then is damned?

No. Wilful ignorance, yes.

Originally Posted by _Z_

but you are saying that we are to be judged when one half of the equasion is not apparent or possibly does not exist.

According to your opinion.

Thomas

[Virtual_Cliff]

It does seem Thomas that your arguments are reflexive. We will have a body, but only one which is nothing like a body. We will have life but not life as we know it. Christ had a physical resurrection, but only if you redefine the word physical.

Most people with a simple faith have always thought of the hereafter as a sort of long holiday with their loved ones. You yourself have said that this is not so. This fact alone, if announced officially, would be enough to empty the pews. Most people, like you (by your own admission), only follow to get their reward. This is not what I call faith. This is looking after number one.

Isn't it time to justify our faith not by promises of pie in the sky but by the knowledge of God in the here and now?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

It does seem Thomas that your arguments are reflexive.

No. My arguments are founded on reasoned faith.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

We will have a body, but only one which is nothing like a body.

Again I have said nothing along these lines. I believe in the Resurrection of the flesh, but that flesh will be immortal and incorruptible ... so I do not assume that everything that conditions us now will condition us then.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

We will have life but not life as we know it.

I think that is fair to say. No-one in the Christian Tradition has ever defined precisely what that life will be like ... nor have those who have savoured it ever managed to adequately convey its sweetness ...

... as St Thomas Aquinas said in the wake of his own vision of his Saviour, "Everything I have written is like straw before the wind... "

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Christ had a physical resurrection, but only if you redefine the word physical.

Again, no. Christ had a physical resurrection, but, nevertheless, He appeared and disappeared, walls did not impede Him. Most significantly, He was not recognised by those who knew Him, until He revealed Himself (with none telling exception).

He transcends the physical, in the same way that He did so when he walked upon the water ... He is not subject to the physical, it aches to serve Him, for therein lies its own truth and reality ...

What follows are some thoughts from the French theologian, Jean Borella:

If there is, in fact, a resurrection of the flesh, this is because the divine principle, which is immanent to the world in the very substance of matter, cannot but, by virtue of Its own Transcendence, tear the physical body out of the cosmic order to which it clings to manifest the very transcendence of the flesh when it has been truly indwelt by the Spirit...

The Spirit dwells in the world, but the world is less real and less perfect than the Spirit. At the very least there is a degree of the world — precisely the one which we are experiencing — whose imperfection crushes us and leads to death.

It is in fact through the body that we are present in a world of bodies. However, this presence, of which we believe ourselves to be the masters since it is somehow identified with us, is in reality a passive and involuntary presence ... it can do nothing but offer itself to our gaze, it can do nothing but be seen. To be seen, and to be corporeally present, is all one. My corporeal presence is my visibility, but my visibility is not my own; it belongs to every gaze, unbeknownst to me and without being able to do anything about it — an ignorance and impotence constituting the every essence of my visibility.

Thus, no one is master of his corporeal presence, and, even more, to be corporeally present is not to be master of this presence.

What happens then, to the contrary, in the Resurrection of Christ? What happens is that the resurrected Body is as if a witness, a living proof, a saving irruption of the glorious nature of the created within the bosom of its dark and opaque modality: Christ's body is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but, by a total change, it is no longer of the essence of this presence to be passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will. Christ can actualize the corporeal mode of His presence according to His own decision and as He judges good. The relationship that He entertains with the corporeal medium of His presence has been completely transformed. A presence active throughout the entire world because a presence really in act, all relationships which unite this corporeal medium with the rest of the bodies, that is to say with the entire world and with the conditions that define it, all these relationships have been changed.

Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen. This is exactly what the Gospels teach, and which so many modern exegetes are incapable of understanding.

Christ glorious is not 'above' the world of the senses, except in a symbolic sense. Simply put, He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality (whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence), a presentification which the spiritual person may or may not effectuate, as freely as human thought can, in its ordinary state, produce or not produce such or such a concept or sentiment. Whoever stops to consider this doctrine of the reversal in the relationship of the person to his corporeal medium and the consequences that this entails, will take into account the remarkable light that it casts on the significance of Christ's post-pascal appearances according to the Gospels.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Most people with a simple faith have always thought of the hereafter as a sort of long holiday with their loved ones. You yourself have said that this is not so.

Again no ... I have not refuted anything but contingent and relative subjectivity ... I would think the afterlife is a long holiday with God and my loved ones ... and hopefully even an Irish Wolfhound or two ... I do agree with the author, however, that the idea of the afterlife for the American Christian denominations seems to accord with 'the American Dream' and should be challenged ...

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

This fact alone, if announced officially, would be enough to empty the pews.

D'you think so? I think most people in the pews have a stronger relationship with Christ than you suppose. Or at least in the hope of rest and peace. I don't think people are as shallow as you assume.

That they have no answer beyond vague imaginings which you would find insufficient says something in itself about their faith. If that was indeed what they were there for, they'd have a better idea, but it isn't (in my experience) so they don't. Nor is it an issue. Their faith is very much the faith of here and now, and the hope of a future to come.

What I have refuted the idea that the causes of sin and suffering in this world will not be present in the next — or rather will not be binding upon us and conditional on our natures.

But I also hold that those 'awake' in the next suffer for the suffering in this world ... if the angels can rejoice, they can weep.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Most people, like you (by your own admission), only follow to get their reward.

If you know anything about Christianity, and about me, you would know that is not so. I have stated on more than one occasion that Christianity is not an insurance policy, nor do I treat it as such.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Isn't it time to justify our faith not by promises of pie in the sky but by the knowledge of God in the here and now?

We were debating the Resurrection. It might be pie in the sky to you, but there are those who labour for it's sake, in this life, in the here and now, who have tasted it ...

If you want to debate the Beatific Vision in this life, that's fine by me ... but my mind is formed according to the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew Ch5-7. And my references are the saints and mystics, who seem by their lives to attest to the Doctrine I follow in an exemplary manner.

They seem to be the proof of the pudding.

Thomas

[Virtual_Cliff]

To translate your quote into more accessible language, then, you are saying that Christ's resurrected body included a sort of personal Tardis*. Well, that finesses its way round the contradictions at least.

Personally I don't find the idea of my body being sucked into the universe by an unstoppable transcendence appealing.

Garrison Keiller describes how one (fictional) Lutheran sect severed from another on the issue of whether we would recognise our loved ones in heaven. Go to any funeral service and you will hear belief expressed in these concrete terms. Even in Acts we read how let down the Christians felt when they started dying and there was still no second coming. Christianity has been sold through the ages on the promise of an indefinite life extension.

I have read many of your posts Thomas and in fact I see you are a wonderfully wise, gentle and spiritual person. In fact reading your contributions persuaded me to join the forum in the first place. I just think you are in a small minority.

You can't promise people a reward and then expect them not to be motivated by it. This undermines the foundations of their faith, which should be built on love, not self-interest. Christ offered nothing but a hard road. Maybe that was not enough to win people over, so a sweetener was added to the doctrine. Is this not so?

(*Tardis for those unfamiliar with Dr Who: a sort of time and space travel machine)