There is a book, written by a Roman Catholic priest. It’s a dialogue between Lakota Medicine men and Roman Catholic priest.
The book is out of print. But in the book, the author talks about spirits of heaven, hell and earth. And the spirits said something in the book, that shocked the medicine men. If the priests continued, they could hear the spirits. Well, spirits are pretty much a part - of Native American spirituality. So they do believe folks who have passed, are alive and conscious. And sometimes they do communicate to us.
1 Corinthians 15:53
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet, for it shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we—we shall be changed:
1Co 15:53 for it behoveth this corruptible to put on incorruption, and this mortal to put on immortality;
1Co 15:54 and when this corruptible may have put on incorruption, and this mortal may have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the word that hath been written, 'The Death was swallowed up—to victory;
Christ was the first person to be raised with an imperishable, immortal body
I take it as a given that: the gospel reports of an empty tomb mean that Jesus’ body had been raised and given a new kind of life - physical and more, and that according to the text his body had not been stolen by the disciples in order to deceive everyone; that Lazarus’ body was revived, but not to immortality, rather subject to further decay, unlike Jesus’.
Those texts about the bodily resurrection of Christ seem like bedrock texts. They of course have been explained away - like every other single issue - but, there they are. And they seem to be all of a piece with Paul’s efforts to explain last things as well.
(As an aside, I find talk that Wright is just trying to sell books, or is a prisoner of the Evangelical mindset, or other attempts to undercut his scholarship to be singularly unconvincing. We have to deal with his exegesis, not fantasies about his motivations.)
Sure there… but why do you ask, are these themselves for some reason unconvincing to you? BTW, you can simply google the answer to your own question.
Something amazing occurred some 2000yrs ago which changed that old order. In His ascension Christ led captivity aka death captive, and showered gifts of grace accordingly, as per Eph 4:8. Not only this, but Paul exudes great confidence for himself and others that… “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” (2Cor 5:8) and… “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. … “For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” (Phil 1:21, 23). And certainly the martyrs of Revelation knew no such silence of the lambs, as per Rev 6:9-10.
There is NOT a skerrick in any of these examples of a supposed comatose state of unconscious deep sleep — “sleep” was sometimes used as a simple metaphor for death… which also hints at the transitory nature of it.
Well, speculation as in, how do you really know that? IF you want the likeness of Jesus’ resurrection you can ALREADY know it, as per Rom 6:5. One thing we do know is that Jesus’ ASCENSION assured him of… “the power of an endless life.”
Given the central place the NT gives to Jesus’ victory and resurrection, your insistence that it’s not clear enough that it wasn’t the same as others, or that he was raised imperishable and immortal seems odd. Or do you see indications that others’ raised up were given such a powerful immortality?
You emphasize needing Jesus’ unique victory to be “really” and “actually told” to us in a more spelled out way. Yet you appear to say that you “know” each reference in the epistles to churchmen’s coming resurrection, to Jesus’ coming back to earth, to God’s judgment on Jesus’ people’s lives and works, etc refer to Rome’s attack on Jerusalem in 70AD, when most readers don’t see such texts “really” spelling that out at all, and could ask, are we “actually told” that. It seems that where we insist on greater clarity depends on our theologies.
P.S. When you imply Romans 6:5’s words (in the future tense) that “we will surely be united with him in a resurrection like his” means that we are we actually told that we “ALEADY” fully experience that, are we actually told that this is not an experience that remains to yet be fulfilled in us?
But Bob, that’s NOT the real issue of Jesus’ victory and resurrection — what you said here is…
I agree!
The reason you don’t see it (other than to so just threatens a sacred cow, i.e., presuppositions) is because… you’re reading someone else’s mail. You’re reading your presuppositions (theology) back into the text as opposed to reading the text through the history, i.e., the context, of the day.
Well, I’ll leave it up to your discretion… but HAVE YOU been ‘raised’ to walk in newness of life ‘now’; or do you yet await a future “flesh and bones” body?
pilgrim, this is not talking about life after we leave the earth. As 1 Peter 22-23 says: " Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, having been born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever."
I disagree. As Hebrews 11:5 says “By faith Enoch was translated so that he did not see death,” and was not found because God had translated him," for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
Fine to disagree… BUT that has zip, zero and zilch to do with the fact that Jesus’ death/resurrection was unique in dealing with sin-death once for all.
Well, that raises a question for me - LLC. What do you mean, when you say Enoch was “translated”? That he ‘did not see death’, much like Elijah? Then you seem to imply, that Jesus was not resurrected? Is this correct? If God can make it so, that Enoch and Elijah - did not see death. …why can’t he do, the same for Jesus…but ‘adding’, returning in a ‘resurrection body’ - whatever that is?
I did add that things, like walking through walls, not being sensed when you’re around people, etc…these are all possible things, that can be done…by people of various religious traditions… that take the contemplative path, to its ultimate conclusion. Let’s look at an article and I’ll quote, a few paragraphs:
And for the academic purists out there! This article was written by a person, with a traditional PhD.
About The Author
Dean Radin, PhD, is Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS). Before joining the research staff at IONS in 2001, he held appointments at AT&T Bell Labs, Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, and SRI International. He is author or coauthor of over 250 technical and popular articles, three dozen book chapters, and three books including the award-winning The Conscious Universe (HarperOne, 1997), Entangled Minds (Simon & Schuster, 2006), and the 2014 Silver Nautilus Book Award winner, Supernormal (Random House, 2013). Visit his website at Dean Radin
Classic yoga texts, such as Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, written about two thousand years ago, tell us in matter- of-fact terms that if you sit quietly, pay close attention to your mind, and practice this diligently, then you will gain supernormal powers. These advanced capacities, known as siddhis, are not regarded as magical; they’re ordinary capacities that everyone possesses. We’re just too distracted most of the time to be able to access them reliably.
The sage Patanjali also tells us that these siddhis can be attained by ingesting certain drugs, through contemplation of sacred symbols, repetition of mantras, ascetic practices, or through a fortuitous birth.
The more advanced siddhis are said to include invisibility, levitation, invulnerability, and superstrength, abilities often associated with comic book superheroes. All these abilities are also described in one form or another in shamanism and in the mystical teachings of religions. In fact, most cultures throughout history have taken for granted that superpowers are real, albeit rare, and surveys today continue to show that the majority of the world’s population still firmly believes in one or more of these capacities.
Siddhi III.17. Knowledge of the meaning of sounds produced by all beings , resulting from samyana on the “third ear,” or the concept of sound, words, or hearing. This may be interpreted as a form of clairvoyance, or telepathy that extends beyond human minds and includes animals, insects, and other species. More generally it is known as clairaudience.
This really means, someone can understand all languages. And talk to any species of animal.
Siddhi III.21.Disappearance of the body from view , as a result of looking at the body with the inner eye. This is sometimes translated as the power of invisibility, because the Sanskrit aphorism contains words suggesting a “suspension of the coarse or limited projection of the body.” But it may also be interpreted as the ability to perceive aspects of the body that are beyond the limited scope of the ordinary senses. In other words, we could interpret this as clairvoyance, or perhaps as psychokinesis.
There is a scientific process, where light is bent - to turn something invisible
Now back to the Siddhi article!
Siddhi III.44–45. Mastery over the elements , through samyama on the elements, enabling manipulation of matter, including the size, appearance, and condition of the body. Variations of these abilities include the fulfillment of any desire, or to create or destroy material manifestations; a highly refined version of psychokinesis.
This would explain walking through walls. Where you are just temporary changing, the human body’s atomic structure.
But it might take, quite a bit of practice!
The only siddhi mentioned I disagree with, is seeing past and future lives. I interpret this as tapping in genetic memory or the collective unconsciousness, for past events.
P.S. Notice (in this video) that the Karate guy, is fighting the Kung Fu guy - in this video. But at the end, the Kung Fu guy - helps the Karate guy - “walk through walls”!
To Bob and Davo. With all Due Respect! I’m afraid you two, have a Mexican standoff!
The reason you don’t see it is because… you’re reading your theology back into the text.
"Have you been ‘raised’ to walk in newness of life ‘now’; or are you awaiting future “flesh and bones”?
Davo, I don’t see 6:5 claiming we can’t “walk in newness of life now.” I see it using the future tense about when we will be united with him in a resurrection like his. And I also don’t see why you imply that His consisted of “flesh and bones”?
I agree that we’re prone to read in our theology. Of course your inability to see Jesus as raised with immortality (as well as you seeing readers’ future tense resurrection as happening in Rome’s sack of Jerusalem) appears to me as reading your own suppositions into the text.
One of the most frequently (if not the most frequently) misquoted sentences in the entire Bible!
Rather the sentence actually reads: We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
To those who have been trained in the first false quote, the true quote doesn’t make any difference. But with the following understanding, it makes a great deal of difference:
We would rather be absent from THIS PRESENT BODY and be with the Lord IN THE RESURRECTION BODY.
And that resurrection will not take place until the Lord’s return.
Paul tells his brothers and sisters in Christ that they still await the redemption of the body. Are you suggesting that your body has already been redeemed?
Here’s a couple of passages that support your statement:
(1Cor 15:20) But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. (Col 1:18) And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
SO WHY all of a sudden do you assume Paul’s “in the likeness of His death” NOW magically changed with regards to “the likeness of his resurrection”? A 1-for-1fleshly correlation WASN’T necessary to be a partaker in Christ’s death… SO WHY NOW change horse mid-sentence with regards to resurrection — hardly seems a consistent handling of Paul??
Well given you seem to hold to a somewhat ‘glorified body’ view I was simply deferring to the text where Jesus points to his risen biological substance… which is why I was surprised at your claim to have NO understanding as to what biological resurrection refers; consider Jesus here…
Lk 24:39Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Cf. vs.40-43
Did I really say that Bob… or are you NOT reading me carefully enough BEFORE your contrary assumptions just kick in, again??
Qaz… you keep asking this question and I have answered you on a number of occasions… why keep asking? “I am the God of the living not the dead.” — again, what does that tell you?
What is the focus of the NT on this… to walk in newness of life, i.e., resurrection life in Christ as a present reality, OR escaping to the hereafter beyond? Don’t believe me? Consider Wright…
…conservative Christian readers often scrunch together two very different things. One is going to heaven after you die, and the other is the resurrection of the body as the final destination. Many conservatives are puzzled when I tell them that there’s not very much in the New Testament about going to heaven when you die, and that where you do find material in the New Testament about going to heaven when you die, this is a temporary thing. What really matters is resurrection—Life After Life After Death.
In many conservative circles, the word resurrection has come to denote the state upon which the Christian enters immediately after death. And my point is that throughout—from Paul as our earliest Christian writer right onto Origen at the end of the second century—that is simply not what the word resurrection meant to such people.
Wright, N.T., http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/115/42.0.html