Raising the dead

[grambowsgirl]

If we go to heaven when we die, who is left to be "raised from the dead" at judgement day?

[Malikah4818]

From my understanding, when we die, we are in a resting place until the Lord and savior Jesus comes back. Then the bible says that the dead in Christ shall arise first. 1 Thess 4:16

[Jac3510]

Your soul is taken to heaven (or hell) when you die, but your soul is essentially related to its body, and "you" are identified with that body/soul composite. The resurrection reunites the soul with its body--the body to which it is supposed to be united., but due to death, is not.

[seveneyes]

There is no delay between death and resurrection. The delay is only in our earthly perceptions of time which is relative. No one is having to "wait" as it were. Only we here on earth wait for the day of the Lord, which is all but complete, the battle already won. It is an excellent question and one that leads into the mystery and power of God. The carnal mind cannot conceive of what it knows nothing of and we see it grasping at whatever it can relate to to answer the larger questions. Only those who have seen can answer such things and if you do not accept my answer, you can read in the bible and understand the truth behind what I am saying. One proof comes directly from the mouth of Jesus when he tells the thief next to him on the cross that "Today you will be with me in paradise." There are several other verses that give insight to this as well. Keep in mind that the spiritual realm is not on our time frame. It is outside of time completely, hence Angels can visit our past and our future within their "now"

Those who have died in Christ do rise first and are not waiting for anything. We are waiting to see it.

[Jac3510]

Interesting that I ought not give an answer to a question--an answer that I derive from Scripture--but you go on to give an answer.

There is, of course, plenty I do disagree with you on, and some, of course, that I do agree with. It's hard to say much more, though, as you made quite a few statements without explaining what they mean or why one ought to accept them. For instance, you seem to think that angels can effectively travel time. Do you have any verse that says as much? Moreover, if angels really are not bound by time, what did the angel mean when he said he was detained by the prince of Persia for twenty one days?

[seveneyes]

detained for 21 of Daniels days, not his own.

Many people think that there is some kind of physical resurrection at the resurrection. There is not. Corinthians completely explains the spiritual body that we will have. Scripturaly we also will not have to wait for anything. If the human time frame perceives a wait, let me ask you; What does a dead man know of time? To the dead, they die and then are perfected, and in glory.

The Angel tried to come to Daniel 21 of Daniels days prior, but from where>? A different dimension completely, and instead of entering the dimension at that point had to enter at a different point because a spirit had blocked the first entry. Speculation here to be sure, but to think that Angels are on our time frame or from our dimension is to lose sight of scripture. The things that the Angel tells Daniel is given to Daniel in ways that he can understand and do not contain all of the information about how he travels or the nature of the time difference between the spiritual world and our own. Are Angels ever in our time frame? Apparently they are subjected to it to some degree when they visit here.

[Jac3510]

It seems to me that if a being is outside of time, then it makes no sense to say they were detained in time, whether Daniel's time or their own. If the angel could travel time, I don't see why he couldn't just jump back twenty-one of Daniel's days.

As to the resurrection, if there is no physical body, then how was Jesus' body physical? Based on what you've said in this thread and the other, your thoughts seem to be very much in line with the old Gnostic heresy. Beyond that, I think you're also going to have a serious problem with Job 19:25-26, in which Job declares that he will be resurrected in his flesh.

For what it is worth, here is Thomas Aquinas' statement on the matter. I think it is very well said.

• I answer that, According to the various opinions about man's last end there have been various opinions holding or denying the resurrection. For man's last end which all men desire naturally is happiness. Some have held that man is able to attain this end in this life: wherefore they had no need to admit another life after this, wherein man would be able to attain to his perfection: and so they denied the resurrection. This opinion is confuted with sufficient probability by the changeableness of fortune, the weakness of the human body, the imperfection and instability of knowledge and virtue, all of which are hindrances to the perfection of happiness, as Augustine argues at the end of De Civ. Dei (xxii, 22). Hence others maintained that after this there is another life wherein, after death, man lives according to the soul only, and they held that such a life sufficed to satisfy the natural desire to obtain happiness: wherefore Porphyrius said as Augustine states (De Civ. De. xxii, 26): "The soul, to be happy, must avoid all bodies": and consequently these did not hold the resurrection. This opinion was based by various people on various false foundations. For certain heretics asserted that all bodily things are from the evil principle, but that spiritual things are from the good principle: and from this it follows that the soul cannot reach the height of its perfection unless it be separated from the body, since the latter withdraws it from its principle, the participation of which makes it happy. Hence all those heretical sects that hold corporeal things to have been created or fashioned by the devil deny the resurrection of the body. The falsehood of this principle has been shown at the beginning of the Second Book (Sent. ii, D, 4, qu. 1, A[3]; *[Cf. FP, Q[49], A[3]]). Others said that the entire nature of man is seated in the soul, so that the soul makes use of the body as an instrument, or as a sailor uses his ship: wherefore according to this opinion, it follows that if happiness is attained by the soul alone, man would not be balked in his natural desire for happiness, and so there is no need to hold the resurrection. But the Philosopher sufficiently destroy this foundation (De Anima ii, 2), where he shows that the soul is united to the body as form to matter. Hence it is clear that if man cannot be happy in this life, we must of necessity hold the resurrection.(ST IIIb.75.1 - I would also strongly encourage you to read through questions 79 and 80 of the same section, especially 79.1 ad 1)

Now, with all this, pray tell . . . what makes you think there will be no physical body in the resurrection. You need to be careful here, because you are dangerously close to a set of heresies that impact how we understand the Incarnation . . .

edit:

For those interested in some of the thinking behind this (K, I thought you might like this in particular), here is the relevant section of De Anima Aquinas refers to in the above quoted section:

• For, as we said, word substance has three meanings form, matter, and the complex of both and of these three what is called matter is potentiality, what is called form actuality. Since then the complex here is the living thing, the body cannot be the actuality of the soul; it is the soul which is the actuality of a certain kind of body. Hence the rightness of the view that the soul cannot be without a body, while it cannot he a body; it is not a body but something relative to a body. That is why it is in a body, and a body of a definite kind. It was a mistake, therefore, to do as former thinkers did, merely to fit it into a body without adding a definite specification of the kind or character of that body. Reflection confirms the observed fact; the actuality of any given thing can only be realized in what is already potentially that thing, i.e. in a matter of its own appropriate to it. From all this it follows that soul is an actuality or formulable essence of something that possesses a potentiality of being besouled. (De Anima, ii.2)

[seveneyes]

Nothing that is written in those opinions hold any water within this conversation. Not when concerned with what I have spoken for they are mans ideas. I do not speak of man's ideas nor was I indoctrinated by any man to speak what I have spoken. Many use conjecture of the scriptures to think that because Jesus had (for a short time) a certain type of resurrected body, that we will have a replica of that. The bible does NOT claim any such thing. Jesus had that body for a short time as part of his ministry, because we had to have witnesses to his resurrection. We are not called to this same duty. It is clear that we will have spiritual bodies in the resurrection according to Corinthians which you have referred to. Paul is one who had seen portions of heaven and as an eyewitness to our inheritance spoke boldly of our spiritual glorification and perfection. In no place in the bible does Jesus or anyone else make a claim of anything besides a spiritual/ heavenly inheritance. Only those who use conjecture of the scriptures proclaim such that flies in the face of every single human beings existential yearnings and questions of life after death. What God has put into us to so desperately seek (life after death) he also promises us. I can list scripture after scripture testifying to this. Jesus's words as well as the other apostles who were eyewitnesses all testify to the same things concerning this. As far as that verse in Job, be careful that you do not put your own interpretation on that which was spoken in passion. What he is saying is similar to what John the baptist spoke when he rebuked the Jews and said "From these very stones God can produce offspring of Abraham." He is basically saying that nothing can separate him form God and his power, but he is in no way claiming any sort of doctrinal reality. The realities are clearly spoken by Christ and the apostles: "But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect," and "and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, " again "and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. " At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." "and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.""My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?""Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear."

It is no where near heresy to proclaim our spiritual inheritance in the kingdom of God. Christ himself speaks about inheriting the kingdom/eternal life many many times.

[seveneyes]

For those interested in some of the thinking behind this (K, I thought you might like this in particular), here is the relevant section of De Anima Aquinas refers to in the above quoted section:

• For, as we said, word substance has three meanings form, matter, and the complex of both and of these three what is called matter is potentiality, what is called form actuality. Since then the complex here is the living thing, the body cannot be the actuality of the soul; it is the soul which is the actuality of a certain kind of body. Hence the rightness of the view that the soul cannot be without a body, while it cannot he a body; it is not a body but something relative to a body. That is why it is in a body, and a body of a definite kind. It was a mistake, therefore, to do as former thinkers did, merely to fit it into a body without adding a definite specification of the kind or character of that body. Reflection confirms the observed fact; the actuality of any given thing can only be realized in what is already potentially that thing, i.e. in a matter of its own appropriate to it. From all this it follows that soul is an actuality or formulable essence of something that possesses a potentiality of being besouled. (De Anima, ii.2)

[/quote]

Be careful not to lose his meaning. He merely is stating that while something is defined as a body it needs to be clarified as to the parameters of that body. It clearly gives acknowledgement to SPIRITUAL form as a form. It also confirms that a physical body can be transformed into a spiritual body.

[Jac3510]

I wouldn't be so quick to write off people's opinions with whom you disagree as just the opinions of mere man. After all, what are your own opinions, but that of a mere man? Does the fact that Aquinas and Aristotle agree with me mean that I am right? Of course not. But it does mean that what they say ought to be considered carefully, given their intense study of such things.

As to your last statement about Aristotle, I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. He is using the term form in a very specific way--that is, in the form/matter distinction of hylomorphism. More important is his use of the terms actuality and potentiality and how they relate to the substance that is the soul/body composite.

I'm content to let this stand. You can have any last word you want. As it stands, you've not made any arguments, and I feel like this is starting to go in circles. I've raised now a half dozen arguments against your position and you've not responded to any of them except to remark on a background text, which you proceeded to interpret incorrectly. Your views are essentially Gnostic, which is a heresy condemned very early on, and in fact, John himself called the spirit of the antichrist. I'm not saying that yourself a Gnostic. Your views are developed enough to warrant the label, but your basic dismissal of the body as essentially good and necessary for man's happiness is the root of Gnosticism, which in turn leads to, or at least strongly implies, doceticism, for those who are consistent in their philosophy. I'm just telling you that there are serious ramifications to what you are saying, not the least of which is that I can follow your principles and deny the resurrection of Christ Himself (see John Dominic Crossan for one such person who does exactly that).

Against all this, I leave you against with Job 19: 25-26 (my translation):

• I know that my redeemer lives, and afterwards He will stand upon the earth; and after [worms] destroy my skin, still in my flesh I will behold God

[seveneyes]

I do not claim gnosticism or any such labels as you have described, nor do I renounce any resurrection. Everything I state as far as our spiritual bodies is stated in the bible. Physical resurrection on the last day and Ideas surrounding it are not actually biblical at all. Christ would have told us so if it were any other way. He would not promise us his kingdom in heaven as he does.

The only ramifications to what i speak is that we see our true inheritance as Christ spoke, not as man speaks.

I do agree with you as far as going in circles. I hope that the existential questions of peoples heart and the holy spirit show them the reality of Gods promise, which whatever view you ascribe to is better than hell...Salvation through Christ is still preached.

[Bill McEnaney]

Many people think that there is some kind of physical resurrection at the resurrection. There is not. Corinthians completely explains the spiritual body that we will have. Scripturaly we also will not have to wait for anything. If the human time frame perceives a wait, let me ask you; What does a dead man know of time? To the dead, they die and then are perfected, and in glory.

Then it's hard to interpret what Our Lord said in the upper room after He resurrected. If there's no physical resurrection, why would He ask Thomas to put his hand into Christ's wounded side? Did Our Lord only seem to have a material body? I've always thought He asked Thomas to do examine His wounds to convince him that Christ still had a material body. Jesus even ate something then when He reminded the Apostles and others that ghosts don't eat. The door stayed shut when Our Lord appeared in the upper room. With my merely physical body, I can't walk through a solid, closed door. But maybe a resurrected body can do things that our bodies can't do before they resurrect.

[Canuckster1127]

Perhaps when we've solved this issue, we should tackle how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I understand that question is still hanging .....

[seveneyes]

Many people think that there is some kind of physical resurrection at the resurrection. There is not. Corinthians completely explains the spiritual body that we will have. Scripturaly we also will not have to wait for anything. If the human time frame perceives a wait, let me ask you; What does a dead man know of time? To the dead, they die and then are perfected, and in glory.

Then it's hard to interpret what Our Lord said in the upper room after He resurrected. If there's no physical resurrection, why would He ask Thomas to put his hand into Christ's wounded side? Did Our Lord only seem to have a material body? I've always thought He asked Thomas to do examine His wounds to convince him that Christ still had a material body. Jesus even ate something then when He reminded the Apostles and others that ghosts don't eat. The door stayed shut when Our Lord appeared in the upper room. With my merely physical body, I can't walk through a solid, closed door. But maybe a resurrected body can do things that our bodies can't do before they resurrect.

Let me ask you why you think that the interaction of Christ and Thomas is some kind of statement as to our own resurrection? I see nothing there to hint toward anything besides the fact that Thomas himself said that; ""Unless I see the nail marks in his hands, put my finger into them, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe!" This is why Jesus had him put his hand into his side. So that Thomas would believe. Basically the entire reason behind Jesus's physical resurrected body was so that he could be seen by men and believed upon for salvation. Remember, Jesus had the power to walk through walls before he was crucified. He walked on water, sent the disciples ahead of him to Capernaum in a boat, but was there waiting for them on the other side. He may have teleported somehow, there was definitely supernatural power at work not only after his resurrection, but before. To say that he could not have walked through walls would be baseless. Christ was resurrected in his way and others were resurrected by Christ in that time. All according to the prophets and in keeping with the purpose of The Father, but on the "Last Day" there is no more need for the testimony toward Men of the power of God for salvation. The Lord will come with the clouds with all of the Holy ones with him. We are not Christ, nor are we called to the same physical resurrection as him according to scripture. The current heaven and earth are marked for destruction. Our inheritance is NOT on this earth.

[Canuckster1127]

Seems to me it's better to take the stated facts and reasons in Scripture at face value when they're available and not try to overthink or rationalize by inference more than is presented.

It's also OK to say, I don't know. I have an opinion. But in the end it's not something I have to worry about because God has it all in hand and I'll know when the time comes.

I sometimes think God must smile as he listens to us speculate about so many of these future things. I bet for him it's like hearing from the back seat every minute or so. "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"