capnkirk

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

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

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

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

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:

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!