Everlasting life , what do we know about it?

[dwilkins]

Homer,

Paul and the rest of the NT writers consistently refer to "flesh" (sarx) as something that gets in the way of a close relationship with God. In 1st Cor. 15 Paul goes as far as saying "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The body made of pneumas that he is anticipating is an upgrade from a body made of sarx. You can see this as well in 2nd. Cor. 5, widely seen as Paul's comment to clarify any misunderstanding in 1st Cor. 15. In 2nd Cor. 5 he says,

2Co 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling,
2Co 5:3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked.
2Co 5:4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

The body that they would have eternally was already prepared for them in heaven, and it was not made out of sarx. It was a material body made of pneumas, according to the cosmology that Paul was following.

The gnosticism allegation is inappropriate because our modern understanding of it via Christian academia is fundamentally flawed. There were no gnostics during the time of the writing of the NT. There were plenty of non-gnostic Christian writers (two major ones being Origen and Eusebius) who did not presume that we would have a body made of sarx while in heaven. The crank Irenaeus may (or may not) have been right about what the Valentinians believed, but given what else he was wrong about in his writings I see no reason to accept his conclusions at face value.

This is a complicated area of study. I'd suggest starting with the three books I linked earlier. After that, I'd look at A. A. Long and his book on Hellenistic philosophy as well as Troels Engberg-Pedersen and his books on Stoic thought.

Doug

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[steve]

To me the verse "corruption cannot put on incorruption" settles it.

Hmmmm...I guess that verse would settle it...if such a verse existed. Actually, scripture declares the opposite: "This corruption will put on incorruption" (1 Cor.15:53). Does that change anything for you?

The gates of the city are what keep things out, and since salvation is equated with entering, and the outsiders are described as dogs and evildoers, I don't understand how that idea fits in with restorationist Universalism. I'd sincerely like to know.

While it is true that closed city gates are intended to keep folks out, the opposite is the case with gates that stand perpetually open:

"Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there)." (Rev.21:25)

[steve]

Steve, I appreciate such a detailed answer to my post. I'd like to hear more from you in the future about how to handle such passages as Isaiah 66 and Zechariah 14.

Hi Doug,

I identify the fulfillment of Isaiah 60-66 and Zechariah 14 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the time since then (the present age). The Church is certainly the New Jerusalem, as Paul (Gal.4:26), the writer of Hebrews (12:22-23), and the imagery of Revelation 21-22 make plain. However, the Bride in Revelation is depicted in a future state, after the Church's glorification ("having the glory of God" —21:11).

Glorification is (in my eschatological understanding) the still-future destiny of the Church. I apply Isaiah 65-66 and Zechariah 14 to the present, as the New Testament writers understood them, judging from their numerous citations from, and allusions to, these passages. Isaiah's "New Heaven and New Earth" (65:17; 66:22) and Paul's "New Creation" (2 Cor.5:17), however, refer to the Church as the present precursor of the entire redeemed creation (Rom.8:19-22), which I find also described in Revelation 21-22.

At this point in time, we have only "tasted of the powers of the age to come" (Heb.6:5). Prior to AD 70, the author of Hebrews could say, "We do not yet see all things put under [man]" (Heb.2:8). Now, post-AD 70, we can still say that we have not yet seen that development. The implication, though, is that someday we shall.

One can admit that Revelation takes the imagery of "New Heaven and New Earth" from Isaiah (as well as much imagery from Zechariah) without assuming that the two books are necessarily looking at the same timeframe. Similarly, the imagery of "two olive trees" (Rev.11:4) is unmistakably derived from Zechariah 4:11-12. Yet, Zechariah's usage applies to 520 BC, whereas Revelation's reference applies to a situation almost 600 years later. The same is true of most of the imagery of Revelation. It often borrows terminology and symbols from the whole of the Old Testament, but applies them in new ways to situations different from the originals. This is a primary characteristic of the book.

[Singalphile]

I reckon that many followers of God - perhaps most or all - in ancient times didn't have any knowledge about an after-life, or even if there was such a life. But they obeyed God. That's pretty neat.

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him."

I once quoted that as if it were about "heaven", but then I had to correct myself later. Paul follows that (an apparently paraphrase of Isaiah 64:4) in 1 Cor 2 with "these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit." Nevertheless, I reckon it'll be true of our future as well.

[Mitzi]

To Paidon:
Would you please tell me what the view you hold on this subject is generally referred to as being? If there
a label for it?

I too have been to funerals where people assume the soul has just
flitted off to heaven but I think, is that right? Are we even supposed to ask that? And if your view is the correct one,
why would we be forbidden to pray for the souls who have already died, that the Lord have mercy on them at the
resurrection? I have been tempted to pray for the dead, but I don't because I know most Christians forbid it
though I haven't searched out that matter yet. But if God is merciful and we ask Him to have mercy on the departed
at the resurrection, what is wrong with that? Where is it forbidden? Is it this following two verses (of which I
really don't understand either)?


Romans 10:
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

Since Christ stated He was going to prepare a place for us, that where He is we may be also. Isn't that place our
new body? Maybe my problem in understanding all these things is my concept of time. It always seems to be
a problem in my understanding of things. Perhaps since the spiritual, i.e. the heavens do rule, and there is no time
there, but only in the temporal (i think) maybe it's time, now, eternity and perpetuity that I'm having difficulty with.
Perhaps if I get the correct understanding of time and how it works with the bible and in eternity involving the
temporal realm, maybe I can get some better understanding.

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[dizerner]

[user account removed]

[TK]

Steve wrote:

there may be other of God's creatures, terrestrial or extraterrestrial

I am intrigued by this comment. Can you elucidate?

TK