judge

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

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

Thank you for theheads-up, but I think I had better let judge make that point on his own.

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:

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

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:

Other Christian literature also shows how early this view was:

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


And,


Clement of Rome, 1.6.

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

Polycarp, 1.35.

So too Justin Martyr:

Justin Martyr, 1.239.

And Iranaeus:

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

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

What are the incompatible concepts?

capnkirk

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.

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

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.

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