Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Spong

Donations

Total amount
$1,642.00
Goal
$5,080.00
T

Ted

Guest
vic :biggrin

Two points.

Who appointed you to judge whether one is or is not a Christian. That is presumptuous and clearly advised against. Just because they don't agree with you is a rather poor basis for such a judgment. Isn't it time to leave that up to God?

Secondly I happen to agree with Spong. Yes, I too call for a new reformation. Does that make me not a Christian? Jesus called for a reformation, Luther called for a reformation and now we have another group calling for a reformation.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
Re: St. Augustine on "The Will of Man"

Ted said:
Who appointed you to judge whether one is or is not a Christian. That is presumptuous and clearly advised against. Just because they don't agree with you is a rather poor basis for such a judgment. Isn't it time to leave that up to God?

I am not Vic, but I think the attitude is improperly placed. There is a fine line between "judging" another person and setting out a line of demarcation that tells people what we believe and what we don't as Christians. Christianity IS a religion, a means of reaching to God, of forming a relationship with that God. Christianity presumes a particular set of beliefs. It is not just some broad "feel-good" spirituality, but is based on a historical person who has revealed God to mankind. As such, there is an objective sense of Christianity.

Unfortunately, "tolerance" has been stretched to the point of erasing WHAT Christians ARE! One of the fundamental teachings of Christianity is that they have values that are DIFFERENT than the world's values. As such, the attempt by some, such as Sprong, is a watered down version of what God has revealed through Jesus Christ. The question then becomes "Is Christianity a revealed religion from God or not"? Sprong believes the latter, so it is easy for him to soften some of the things he doesn't like or things that rely on faith, such as the Virgin Birth.

Ted said:
Secondly I happen to agree with Spong. Yes, I too call for a new reformation. Does that make me not a Christian? Jesus called for a reformation, Luther called for a reformation and now we have another group calling for a reformation.

The Church is ALWAYS reforming herself, constantly putting on the mind of Christ. People such as Sprong are not calling for a reformation, but a deformation to make the Church in THEIR image and THEIR ideas of what God has revealed. Luther's call was just as misplaced as Sprong. There is a difference between calling for reformation and calling for a dissension in the Church because it doesn't suit one's fancy.

Regards
 
Re: St. Augustine on "The Will of Man"

If I understand the material from Spong, he does not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead.

As much as I have at times taken a more "liberal" view than Vic on matters of human sexuality and am even open (repeat open, not yet convinced) to arguments that we have misunderstood the Scriptural teaching on things like homosexuality, the denial of the physicality of the Resurrection takes the legs entirely out from Christianity. If I was convinced that Jesus did not rise from the dead, I would join Israel in her view that Messiah is yet to come.

This is not an argument that Spong is wrong, just that this view of his empties Christianity of any reality whatsoever.

Here are some quick thoughts as to why the physicality of the resurrection is so important. Ironically, I expect that many of my fellow believers will agree with my conclusion about the centrality of the resurrection, but will disagree with my reasons.

1. Heaven is not a domain up in the sky - it is this world with its tree, stars, rivers, hamburgers, cats, dogs, and sexuality, all remade as to what it was originally intended to be. This is what the long story of God redeeming the entire cosmos (Romans 8!) is all about. If Jesus did not rise physically then the promises of a redeemed physcial earth (our ultimate destination as per 1 Cor 15)) fail accordingly.

2. Human beings are not souls / spirits clothed in a physical body. We are of "single substance" - and purely "physical" at that - "animated" if you will by the in-breathed spirit of God (Genesis 2: "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and (I)man became a living being.". If Jesus is not raised physically, we have no future beyond the grave since there simply is no consciousness bearing thing that is "non-physical".

But the real issue is item 1 (from which item 2 flows). The core of the gospel message is that Jesus is Lord of a physical universe that is being reworked into its "Eden" form (and we gain eternal physical life as one of the consequences). If Jesus did not really rise physically as the first-fruits of this entire process, the gospel reduces to nothing except some common sense advice on how to get along. If I were to be convinced that this is the case, I would join the Jews in awaiting the Messiah.
 
I split the thread into two. The above comments are in response to this:

I have been accused of knowing little about Spong, like I actually care to know about this person who dares to call himself a Christian Bishop. I know what God has willed me to know and for the most part, I rely fully on the words of Proverbs 3:5-6.

So, since one claims I know little about this apostate, I will forgo any opinion and post straight from the "horse's" site. With the guidance of the HS, let the reader decide for themselves.

(Steve, where are you? I know you know about this man than I)

A call for a new reformation

... My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.

Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.

So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium.
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
 
Lets address Spong's so-called "New Reformation" and how he views orthodox and reformed Christianity.

BYW, I judge not this man, but judge the points on the list. Based on this, I can honestly say he does not represent historical Christianity and he can't be compared to Luther in any way, shape or form.
 
I do think I can address all of these in one post. vic actually thanks for the spit.

To suggest that Spong is an apostate is to judge the man.

To suggest that if Jesus did not rise physically from the dead then our faith in him is useless is simply erroneous. We are clearly told that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom". I accept a spiritual resurrection..

The Good News of Jesus Christ was the arrival of the kingdom of God. That was his main message. This kingdom is open to all who wish it whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.

Let us now address the issue of orthodoxy. The orthodoxy followed by many was the invention of the reformation and does not come from the early church. It was invented some 400 years ago. The men and women that I study go back to the earliest church in order to see what it meant then and what it means now.

The meanings of words have changed over the centuries. The Divine has not changed but how we view him/her has. We now understand much better with our ever increasing fund of knowledge and our life experiences.

I will address some words. "God---In English Bibles, the word God stands for three Hebrew expressions---el. elohim, and YHWH--as well as for theos in the Greek Scriptures."

"In the Hebrew Scriptures el, or more commonly the plural elohim, denotes divine powers of various kinds. When Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims pray, they address their prayers to Allah, a word from the same root. El and elohim could also be used in reference to the other deities worshiped by the tribes in the neighborhood of the ancient Israelites." Pg 109, "From Literal to Literary", J. R. Adams.

On sin--"We are no better off today, even with the help of modern psychology, to explain why people can be motivated by both a desire for self-preservation and for self-destruction [sin] , by both altruism and total disregard for the well-being of other people. Christians in the fourth century came up with an explanation that has had tragic consequences. Augustine of Hippo decided that the tendencies toward sin were pass from generation to generation therough the generative act itself. Sex is sinful so everyone is born sinful and has a capacity for doing good only through the grace of God transmitted in baptism. In spite of the protests by Britain's first theologian of note, a layman from Wales whose name was Pelagius, the views of Augustine prevailed."

"The result in the wester world has been a terrible preoccupation with sex and disparagement of women. Even worse, the Augustinian view of sin reduces a sense of personal responsibility for one's behaviour. As Peter Brown, one of his recent biographers, put it, to accept Augustine's view of sin is to drift into a kind of languid piety."

"The sin metaphor, understood as missing the mark, can be quite useful in helping troubled people figure out where they might have gone wrong. Instead of seeing themselves as hopelessly corrupt, the can learn to accept responsibility for those actions that did not deal directly with the issue at hand." Pg. 232 Ibid.

Grace--Both grace and the biblical word it translates suggest a quality of an attractive gift or a favorable impression. The Hebrew word is chen, often translated as favor. In British English grace and favor are sometimes links, as in the expression grace and favor housing, residences supplied rent free to civil servants or military personnel. [now and important point] The Greek word is charis, the root of charisma and Eucharist." Pg115. Ibid.

Last one. "Eve, noun---In the stories found in the second and third chapters of Genesis, adam--the sexually undifferentiated human being--becomes divided into male and femal parts. The female part in the story at first has no name. She is simply ishah, woman." p89, Ibid.

That last one shows quite a change when it moves from an asexual being to the name of a man.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
Ted said:
To suggest that Spong is an apostate is to judge the man.

Not at all. You yourself say that a person of ANY religion can come into the KIngdom. No one is judging whether Sprong is "of the Kingdom", but whether he is a Christian. His views divert from what Christianity professes - that Jesus Christ is Risen. Even that fundamental krygma is distorted by Sprong. How can we then call him a "Christian"? Whether he will enter the Kingdom is between God and himself. But we CAN know whether what he teaches is Christian or not.

Ted said:
To suggest that if Jesus did not rise physically from the dead then our faith in him is useless is simply erroneous. We are clearly told that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom". I accept a spiritual resurrection..

Read 1 Cor 15. Paul makes the statement that Jesus DID rise from the dead, a physical body, not just a spiritual one. "Flesh cannot inherit heaven" means that our own corrupt body cannot inherit heaven - our body will be transformed, just as our pioneer, Jesus' Body was changed.

Ted said:
The Good News of Jesus Christ was the arrival of the kingdom of God. That was his main message. This kingdom is open to all who wish it whether they be Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc.

It is open DESPITE a person being Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc. ALL religions are not the same. That is relativism, clearly a teaching of Sprong and NOT Christianity.

Ted said:
Let us now address the issue of orthodoxy. The orthodoxy followed by many was the invention of the reformation and does not come from the early church. It was invented some 400 years ago. The men and women that I study go back to the earliest church in order to see what it meant then and what it means now.

That is true and you are correct that we should go back to the ancient Christians to see how they read the Bible and lived their faith.

Ted said:
The meanings of words have changed over the centuries. The Divine has not changed but how we view him/her has. We now understand much better with our ever increasing fund of knowledge and our life experiences.

Again, that is true. But that doesn't mean that the old definitions are cast aside. They don't change, they develop. They become more clarified.

Ted said:
Last one. "Eve, noun---In the stories found in the second and third chapters of Genesis, adam--the sexually undifferentiated human being--becomes divided into male and femal parts. The female part in the story at first has no name. She is simply ishah, woman." p89, Ibid.

That last one shows quite a change when it moves from an asexual being to the name of a man.

And "Adam" means "man" in Hebrew. Now, looking at the context, we can see the same difference when we address "man" as humankind, or "man" as the gender. Clearly, Genesis 1 and 2 use both, respectively.

Regards
 
Another important one to the Christian faith is the word

"hell, noun Three words in the Bible--one Hebrew and two Greek--have appeared in English versions ofthe Bible as hell.

The Hebrew term, sheol, in modern versions is often simply transliterated. Although attitudes toward sheol changed over time, all the usages point to the idea of a place under the ground where the hades of the dead reside. The idea probably arose from the practice of burying the bodies of the dead in the ground. The ancient Israelites had no concept of life after death or resurrection from the dead until quite late in their history. The dead had no life, but something of their former selves had a shadowy existence under the earth."

"By the time of Jesus, popular notions about the fate of the dead had evolved under the influence of Greek mythology and the dualistic religions indigenous to the east of Palestine. Greek mythology included hades, the place of all who have died. Dualism--imagining good and evil realms in a state of constant warfare--pictured a separation of the dead, the shades of the wicked sent beneath the earth and those of the good lifted to heaven. This merger of traditions lies behind the use of hades in the early Christian writings." pg. 122-123 Ibid.

Gehenna is the only Greek word consistently translated as hell actually referred to "The Valley of the Hinnon--was the Jerusalem city dump. In earlier times, this had been a place of human sacrifice to the Canaanite god Moloch."

"From this distance, no one can say for certain what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of Gehenna. He could have been speaking about a place of future punishment, but his teachings make good sense if he was using Gehenna as a metaphor." meaning for folks misbehaving in society as being banished to the trash heap of life. Pg. 123, Ibid.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
Okay, first two items...

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.

What, may I ask is meaningful?

2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.

the·ism: n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods
So basically, He is saying
"Since God can no longer be conceived in terms of believing in the existence of God...". Does that initial statement seem sensical?
 
francis :biggrin

When you speak of Christianity you speak as if you had a complete grasp of the issue and that you are absolutely correct. That is your view based on your interpretation. Which one of the 22 000 Christian denominations around the world has the only correct interpretation? One should be so lucky.

A flesh and blood body does not pass through solid doors. The uncorrupt body is a spiritual one.

When you say that all religions are not the same I would totally agree with you. However, as I've pointed out earlier the Qur'an also claims to be the word of God. The fact is God has a thousand names and all are seeking the one and only God or ultimate reality. Here again it comes down to the question of which one of the 22 000 + faiths is the true one. The Muslim is equally as convinced as you are that he or she is correct. Once again it comes down to interpretation. So of those 22 000 Christian denominations, many of which feel they are the only correct ones do you judge to be on the one and only truth path.

The fact of the matter is research has been done back to 4500BCE and all of the great faiths began with the same two tenets or three if you will as per Micah 6:8. What does God require of us--that we do justice (distributive) love kindness and walk humbly with our God.

You are correct words do change their meanings. Adam originally meant an asexual being not a man but mankind which is both men and women. It was not the proper name of anyone as with eshah which meant originally woman and not a proper name.

It is time to realize that no one has a absolute handle on the Divine. Absolutely no one. There are many interpretations within Christianity around the world not just yours. Are you going to tell the rest that you have "It"? Good luck.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
francis :biggrin

I will deal with them in the reverse order.

Your definition of "theism" is not from a dictionary of theology. Theism is taken to mean that there is a duality. God is somewhere "out there" and we are here. An example is the idea that the second coming will see Jesus coming on the clouds from somewhere else.

Our understanding now is that is not the case. In line with Paul God "is the One in whom we live and move and have our being." If we exist in God as Paul seems to indicate then it follows that God is not somewhere else. The term being used today is "panentheism". Please not I did not say "pantheism".

Panentheism accepts that God is everywhere including within us not just out there. What gets in our way of finding God is our false self, our emotions, our understandings, our concepts, our reactions. We must go beyond our false self inward to our true self, to the heart of the matter and there we find God. The Psalmist says "Be still and know that I am God." This in effect means to us, "Shut up for a change and listen." This we can do through contemplative or centering prayer. Our job is to acknowledge that the Divine is within us. There are several ways to do that and it is well spelled out in the Great Commandment and Matt 25ff, as well as Micah 6:8 and others if you wish.

I live in a developing, transforming relationship with the risen Lord. He is the master.

I most certainly cannot claim to have a direct line upstairs, sort of thing. Could I be wrong? Sure, every bit as much as anyone else. However, I firmly and passionately believe that I have been led this way by the Holy Spirit. That is how I've lived most of my life, in prayer and meditation. As a result a great many positive things have happened in my life beyond all chance. I simply trust in God. I do not need dogma or doctrine. They are purely man made concepts.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
francis :biggrin

Sorry about that. That is what happens when one is visually impaired.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
Ted said:
francis :biggrin

When you speak of Christianity you speak as if you had a complete grasp of the issue and that you are absolutely correct. That is your view based on your interpretation. Which one of the 22 000 Christian denominations around the world has the only correct interpretation? One should be so lucky.

It is not a "I KNOW EVERYTHING" or "I KNOW NOTHING" proposition. I DO know enough about the fundamental proclamation of Christianity. JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. THAT is not the claim that "I know everything".... Are you trying to say that people CANNOT know the Truth? Is God so helpless to make such a basic revelation known???

Which one of the 22,000 denominations? I'm Catholic, what do you think I am going to say?

Ted said:
A flesh and blood body does not pass through solid doors. The uncorrupt body is a spiritual one.

Flesh and blood DID pass through solid doors. The Apostles gave Jesus food to eat. Remember? Does a spiritual-only being eat food? No. A spiritual-only being doesn't have bodily features. The Apostles knew it was Jesus after some re-assurance because He had changed - He then possessed a "Glorious Body". What is clear to me is that Paul and the rest of Christianity proclaimed Jesus as Risen. Physically. The body was not there. If Christ's "spirit" alone rose, the body would have still been in the tomb. THIS is THE fundamental tenet of Christianity. One who does not accept this cannot call themselves "Christian" in the sense that it is defined.

One may follow Christian teachings, love of neighbor, etc., but Christianity teaches that God BECAME man and rose from the dead after crucifixion. A stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles - just the same, that is what we believe. Those who do not are not Christians.

This is not a judgment on the value of another's life.

Ted said:
When you say that all religions are not the same I would totally agree with you. However, as I've pointed out earlier the Qur'an also claims to be the word of God. The fact is God has a thousand names and all are seeking the one and only God or ultimate reality. Here again it comes down to the question of which one of the 22 000 + faiths is the true one. The Muslim is equally as convinced as you are that he or she is correct. Once again it comes down to interpretation. So of those 22 000 Christian denominations, many of which feel they are the only correct ones do you judge to be on the one and only truth path.

I use the same arguments at times vs. some of my Protestant brothers. I am familiar with the claim that the Catholic Church makes - that IT teaches the fullness of truth from God. That is not to say that other religions do not teach truth. They ALL have some truth in them. However, we believe that Jesus was indeed God incarnate. Muslims do not believe that Christ was God incarnate. Naturally, we will disagree with them on what God's Word is.

We don't even need to go down that path to show that the Qur'an is NOT the Word of God because it contradicts the teachings of the New Testament. It is totally incongruous with the message first introduced by the Jews and refined by Jesus in the NT. Islam in many ways is a step backwards in the understanding of God. We believe that God's Word would mature and develop, not be in a retrograde reversion back to such things as polygamy or the killing of heretics. We don't find anything of the sort in the NT.

As such, we discount the claim the Mohemmed was a prophet of God.

Ted said:
The fact of the matter is research has been done back to 4500BCE and all of the great faiths began with the same two tenets or three if you will as per Micah 6:8. What does God require of us--that we do justice (distributive) love kindness and walk humbly with our God.

ALL faiths have some common denominator. That doesn't mean that they are all the same, or even slightly different. We believe that God has written His Law on EVERYONE'S heart - but this doesn't mean that we are going to discount God's Revelation to the Jews or the Apostles.

Ted said:
It is time to realize that no one has a absolute handle on the Divine. Absolutely no one. There are many interpretations within Christianity around the world not just yours. Are you going to tell the rest that you have "It"? Good luck.

You are preaching to the choir. Catholics realize that God is mystery. We don't claim to know everything about God. Just because there are many interpretations, however, doesn't mean that we cannot know truth. God desires men to come to the knowledge of Truth. He has given mankind the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. We CAN know the Truth, if we are willing to trust in something outside of ourselves, rather than our own, as you note, imperfect abilities.

I don't have "it". But I know where to find the fullness of God's Revelation - which is certainly not EVERYTHING.

Regards
 
francis :biggrin

I will not get into the Roman Catholic Church. You would not want me to go there I'm sure.

Have you read the Qur'an?

You are telling me that you have "the" truth. Most interesting. That is certainly an opinion to which you are entitled.

BTW the Roman church is one among those 22 000 so you have in fact answered that question. Thanks.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 
Ted said:
I will not get into the Roman Catholic Church. You would not want me to go there I'm sure.

Why?

Ted said:
Have you read the Qur'an?

Not the entire book. Enough to know it is a regression.

Ted said:
BTW the Roman church is one among those 22 000 so you have in fact answered that question.

The Catholic Church is the Church of the Apostles. These others that you refer to came much much later.

Regards
 
francisdesales said:
Ted said:
To suggest that if Jesus did not rise physically from the dead then our faith in him is useless is simply erroneous. We are clearly told that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom". I accept a spiritual resurrection..

Read 1 Cor 15. Paul makes the statement that Jesus DID rise from the dead, a physical body, not just a spiritual one. "Flesh cannot inherit heaven" means that our own corrupt body cannot inherit heaven - our body will be transformed, just as our pioneer, Jesus' Body was changed.
I agree with you frances and politely suggest that Ted does not understand the nature of the resurrection as it is represented in the Scriptures. This error is easy to make since we are immersed in a dualist conceptualization of the world where we think of a domain of "spirit" and a domain of "the physical". I am not sure that frances will agree with the following.

One of the big errors (I think) is interpreting the Biblical distinction between "spirit" and "flesh" as a "non-physical" vs "physical" distinction instead of what I think the correct distinction is: a "new creature" vs "old creature" distinction. I do not have time to defend this right now.

In short, though, I believe that in 1 Cor 15, Paul's references to a "spiritual body" are indeed references to a physical body - a thing that exists as a body in space. We are easily misled into thinking that a "spiritual" body is a disembodied non-physical thing. When time permits, I may argue that in the very text of 1 Cor 15, Paul makes it clear that a spiritual body is indeed a thing that one can touch and feel - it is very much physical. As frances points out, the "spiritual body" is a perfected version of our present corrupt bodies. But they are both bodies.

And here frances and I may part company: The ultimate destination of the redeemed person is this very earth remade into it was always intended to be. There is no heavenly abode where disembodied spirits float around - or at least that is not the final destination. As 1 Cor 15:22-23 says, we are made alive at the return of Christ, not before.

Heaven will have trees, cats, rain, food, food, toilets (probably), rivers, and sunshine. One will feel the wind on one's face - it will be a highly physical place. And God will make his dwelling place with us in that world.
 
Drew said:
I agree with you frances and politely suggest that Ted does not understand the nature of the resurrection as it is represented in the Scriptures. This error is easy to make since we are immersed in a dualist conceptualization of the world where we think of a domain of "spirit" and a domain of "the physical".

True. It is the overemphasis on the Greek understanding of the makup of man, the body and soul. The Hebrews did not make such a separation. I think that the "Age of the Enlightenment" furthered the distinction between what can be seen and what can not be seen. That which is unseen, the spirit, became more and more subjective and often doubted.


Drew said:
One of the big errors (I think) is interpreting the Biblical distinction between "spirit" and "flesh" as a "non-physical" vs "physical" distinction instead of what I think the correct distinction is: a "new creature" vs "old creature" distinction. I do not have time to defend this right now.

You are wrong - I do agree with you!

Spirit and flesh refers not to our separate components, but WHAT do we follow? Do we follow the desires of ourselves, the passions, the flesh, or do we desire what God desires, the spiritual leading of the Spirit that dwells within us. It is a predominant theme of Scriptures - do we follow God's ways or our ways. We CANNOT do both!

Drew said:
And here frances and I may part company: The ultimate destination of the redeemed person is this very earth remade into it was always intended to be. There is no heavenly abode where disembodied spirits float around - or at least that is not the final destination. As 1 Cor 15:22-23 says, we are made alive at the return of Christ, not before.

I do believe that there will be a recapitulation. I have read some books on spirituality that are in the Thomistic tradition that studies what exactly did Paul mean by the "third level of heaven". The study reveals a lot, not enough time here to go into that, but it is basically a recapitulation to Paradise. All of creation will be remade. We certainly do not know much about the after-life, but I think it is safe to say that it will AT LEAST be a return to Paradise, what God had originally intended, but even better.

Drew said:
Heaven will have trees, cats, rain, food, food, toilets (probably), rivers, and sunshine. One will feel the wind on one's face - it will be a highly physical place. And God will make his dwelling place with us in that world.

Perhaps. If we take "Paradise" literally, your idea would make sense. The New Jerusalem - will it be a literal city? I don't know. But again the study I refer to above seems to indicate that heaven will be some sort of recapitulation, so perhaps that is what God intends to do.

Regards
 
Drew :biggrin

The Greek language is a very specific language. In 1 Cor. 15:43 the word used for spiritual was pneumatikon. The root of the word is pneuma which means air or wind. I has no meaning whatsoever concerning physicality. "The Greek New Testament", a Greek Lexicon, pg 246, "From Literal to Literary" J. Adams.

Paul was not speaking of a flesh and blood or physical body. Any other interpretation is to add what is not there.

Shalom
Ted :biggrin
 

Donations

Total amount
$1,642.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Back
Top