Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology death and resurrection when?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| death and resurrection when? | Login/Join |
Dear Ryan, I believe that is correct that we will be "like the angels".  , and glorified sons of God.Adam was one with Eve in the garden of Eden before the separation from Eve. The separation of the sexes here on earth is for the bringing forth of children. Blessed is the child who returns to this wholeness and oneness while still here on earth for such a one has truly entered the "Kingdom of Heaven" within, which is a great mystery. | ||||
|
The risen Christ who manifests to the Apostles is in male form; Mary, who already enjoys resurrection is decidedly female in form. I do not hear Jesus' statement that in heaven "we will be like angels" to mean the loss of gender. His statement is in the context of marrying; there will be no marriage as on earth, for we shall enjoy that very intimacy with all in heaven. We are and ever shall be humans, even with our risen bodies. And as humans are male and female, we shall ever be one or the other. Nevertheless, we can experience wholeness as a male or female without losing our gender. | ||||
|
Phil, I hope it's okay to agree to disagree with you on the above when you agree with me that "we will be like angels" yet you state that does not mean the loss of gender. First of all name one female angel mentioned in Scripture?. The angels in Scripture who are and always where obedient to God, are called the sons of God. It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is born of the flesh is flesh. God is Spirit and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit". (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having the "new nature" which is by the direct creation of God. (2 Cor. 5:17, Eph. 2:10) are called "sons of God", (John 1:13, Rom 8:14, 15, 1John 3:1.). Angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Ps. 29:1, 89:6, Dan. 3:25. Gen.6:2, 4. Since "we will be like the angels, we shall be sons of God, the younger brothers of Christ. Furthermore in the Old Testament: Deuteronomy 32:8, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:4 Psalm 29:1, Psa;m 89:5, etc. In our physical bodies given our new birth, men and women both must lift the son of man. Phil's quote: Nevertheless, we can experience wholeness as a male and female without losing our gender. --------------------------------------- I agree with your quote, but feel that as angels we will be merged in this wholeness as beloved sons of God. Our God is not divided, for He is One. In Genesis 6:2 Why would the sons of God, angels be smitten with the daughters of men if they had their own female angels which would surpass any beauty of mere daughters of men?. These angels, the sons of God's sins were beyond our understanding, the worst trespass imaginable, since these sons had their own feminine within their oneness and went after the flesh of human females to fornicate with same. | ||||
|
Freebird, you can, of course, disagree with me, but I don't see where parsing phrases like "sons of God" takes precedence over what Jesus actually revealed to us about our ultimate destiny. In biblical theology, angels are a different order of beings than humans. They are and always have been pure spirits. That they are called "sons of God" only indicates that they are God's children, not that they were once humans who have become pure spirits. Your views on this topic and others of a similar nature are interesting, and I see how you put things together. Listening to one's "inner guru" is good and necessary, but the understanding that emerges must be evaluated in the light of orthodox Christian teaching, or else one runs the risk of privatized theology and gnostic spirituality. Those are great dangers in this age. | ||||
|
Hi Freebird and Phil, Here is some more grist for the mill. This morning, before reading any of your posts today, I was reminded of Freebird's words about women becoming "sons" when reading Romans 8:29, "...those whom he (God) foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he (God's Son) might be the firstborn among many brothers (or, struggling to be inclusive, as NRSV para-phrases it: "within a large family")." Freebird's point of view seems to have some (more?) scriptural support here. In what respect might earthly women become, in heaven, "conformed to the image of His Son"? I'm curious, had you thought of that verse in this context before, Phil or Freebird? I had not. Perhaps rather, like me, you had thought of this memorable saying (added to the original collection of the Gospel of Thomas at a later date) 114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven." http://www.misericordia.edu/us...ies/thomas/Trans.htm | ||||
|
Phil, I also understand as to where you are coming from. I stay with the promises of God who tells me that He will teach me all things and that I have no need for a teacher. That does not mean I shut my eyes and close my ears to what other learned men and women have to offer, individuals much wiser and intelligent than myself. The more I am learning, the more I realize how much more I need to learn, and how very little I do know. I have learned much here on Shalom Place, otherwise, I would have moved on for good already, but to accept someone else's truth as the final word would not benefit me, nor does it benefit anyone else. So we can share together accepting or negating what is given in good faith and learn from each other, than I go within to the teacher who clarifies and leads me in all truths. | ||||
|
Ryan, Although I have never studied Christian Gnosticism, surprisingly, I do seem to know something about same, and see merit in some of the teachings. I believe it is imperative for women to be birthed anew in the male spirit which is given to us in our new birth and to be conformed to the image of God's Son, the greatest gift from the Father which comes forth in the birthing of God's light. Thank you Ryan for your awareness. | ||||
|
Maybe check out 988 - 1004 in the new Catechism. - http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/art11.html That the best summary of the Church's teaching on this matter that you will find. | ||||
|
Additional note: I am certain that Paul's use of the terms "sons" and "brothers" was intended in the same way we used to speak of "men" in reference to the race as a whole -- as an inclusive term. It's not intended as theological language, nor affirmation of any male spirit predominating in Christian rebirth. I'd need to see good, solid evidence to the contrary to change my opinion on this. | ||||
|
Freebird: . . .to accept someone else's truth as the final word would not benefit me, nor does it benefit anyone else. So we can share together accepting or negating what is given in good faith and learn from each other, than I go within to the teacher who clarifies and leads me in all truths. The part I think you're missing, here, Freebird, is the teaching function of the Spirit in Christian community. The Spirit you call "inner teacher" also teaches in and through the community as well. You can read in numerous places how this was recognized in the early Church in terms of the apostolic teaching, and in people gifted with knowledge, wisdom, discernment, and the gift of teaching. Understanding themselves to be part of Christ's mystical body, the early Christians recognized these ministries in the Body to be gifts of the Spirit, and so it would have never occurred to them to view the teaching of the Church as "someone else's truth." What the Church teaches is "our truth," and it is gift to us. The very Scriptures we've been reflecting on are an expression of this communal teaching. To treat it as something we can interpret privately doesn't work. I agree that we ought to consider the teaching and reflect on its meaning for us, to be sure, but in the end, if there is a conflict between what our inner teacher prompts and what the Church teaches, the latter trumps, imo. This is probably the source of some of the tensions we've run into in some of our dialogues, for I know you don't affiliate with any Church body. I wonder where you are with orthodoxy, however? If there is a conflict between orthodox Christian teaching and what you feel your inner teacher prompting, what takes precedence? | ||||
|
Thanks, Phil. That is an excellent statement. Regarding the "when?" it demonstrates a fine balance of scriptural already and not yet: "...Christ will raise us up "on the last day"; but it is also true that, in a certain way, we have already risen with Christ..." | ||||
|
Phil, I two think interpreting this passage must take into account the way that "man" can refer to the whole race. But this is little more complicated because Paul is talking about being "conformed (in heaven) to the image of the Son". The Son, Jesus, is male. He does not say the "glory" of the Son. Rather he says the "image". I'm curious if the term image would usually include sexual differentiation. I'm reminded of Genesis. "God created them in his image and likeness, male and female he created them." It seems that the "image" of God embraces both male and female. But does the "image" of the Son likewise include both? Of course in doing theology, one text should not control the whole understanding of a topic. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see how a particular text can be in tension with the general teaching. | ||||
|
Ryan, I've understood the term, "image of God," to refer to our spiritual consciousness -- that we, like God (and unlike the animals) have a spiritual nature. I understand the term, "image of the Son," to also be referring to a type of consciousness . . . a resurrection consciousness like that of Christ. This goes along with the theotic perspective that characterized early Christian understanding of how our human nature becomes transformed in Christ so that we come to be like Christ. This page takes that appraoch to this passage. I really don't think it has anything to do with Jesus' maleness. | ||||
|
Phil, in response to your above post re tension within our dialogues, I want to state that in this forum's user agreement it mentions that this forum is a Spiritual Christian forum. It now turns out that the Catholic Doctrine and Theology has the final word. Should this be a Catholic forum, than you as the moderator must make this clear to everyone, since there is more to Christianity than the Roman Catholic Church. My discussions fit within the spiritual Christian context, and there are many spiritual Christians who will agree with me. Compare my threads to others on the forum, and you will see that I am consistently faithful to my spiritual Christian beliefs, yet am also embracing a universal love for all of humanity respecting everyone's opinion in their religion and spiritual beliefs. My walk with God and Christ is a journey of my surrendered love and total giving of myself. I judge no one, and have the courage to stand tall in my faith and belief even when others do not agree with me, like you Phil. I have made excellent contributions just as everyone else. I have given lovingly and freely. I do not bow down to any earthly ways, but lift my head high above for the Honor, Love and the Glory of God. Should my heart felt and expressed sharing cause stress for you and the forum members, just say the word and I shall leave, otherwise I must feel welcome, and accepted as everyone else. No greater love has been expressed for God than the love I give to Him and the love He returns to me. | ||||
|
There's no requirement that one be a Catholic to participate on this forum, and I've never suggested as much. Given the Catholic roots of my own faith and understanding, however, anyone participating on this forum ought to expect that they will be in dialogue with my understanding of Catholicism. If there are disagreements, then let them be noted, and let the reasons for them be made clear. That's all that's happening here. No need to personalize anything. | ||||
|
No greater love has been expressed for God than the love I give to Him and the love He returns to me. I thought about letting that pass, but the more I think of it, the more I'm sure this is also part of the tension you bring to a discussion. I'm sure your really do believe that -- that you love God more than I do (or anyone else), and God loves you more than me (or anyone else). So there, now, you said it, and I acknowledged it. But why say such a thing? Do you consider yourself to be spiritually superior to everyone else? That's what's implied in your statement. Even if it is true (and there is no way to know that for sure unless one knows how much everyone else loves God, and how much God loves everyone else) -- it doesn't mean that one is somehow beyond reproof when it comes to theological dialogue. | ||||
|
Back to the question of gender in Heaven: isn't there a point in the womb when gender is undetermind, yet the embryo is still said to be a human being - hence:hence:hence::: | ||||
|
No, gender is determined at conception by the male, who contributes either an X chromosome (female) or Y (male) to the embryo's genetic makeup. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X...determination_system - - - Here's another telling verse: 1 John 3: 2. (Note how the KJV uses "sons of God" while others use "children of God.") I like this expression of "unknowing" and its simultaneous referencing to Christ. He is the pattern for us; what we see in him is an indication of our destiny. The commentaries on this verse are also interesting. Re. the thread topic and "when," I think both Scripture and Tradition are clear that the ultimate manifestation lies ahead, after death, and even another phase at the general resurrection on the "last day," however that is understood. In the meantime, we can and do experience "resurrection life," which can even overflow into the body, illuminating and energizing our "metaphysical physiology." But the essence of that life, I believe, is what Paul describes in Gal. 5 as the fruits of the Spirit -- love, joy, peace, patience, etc. | ||||
|
Hi Stephen, I thought of your comment this morning when I was reading chapters one and two of the following document: COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...-stewardship_en.html Concerning the basic similarity of humanity before and apart from sexual differentiation, the following was relevant: �5. In addition, the incarnation and resurrection extend the original sexual identity of the imago Dei into eternity. The risen Lord remains a man when he sits now at the right hand of the Father. We may also note that the sanctified and glorified person of the Mother of God, now assumed bodily into heaven, continues to be a woman. When in Galatians 3:28, St. Paul announces that in Christ all differences � including that between man and woman � would be erased, he is affirming that no human differences can impede our participation in the mystery of Christ. The Church has not followed St. Gregory of Nyssa and some other Fathers of the Church who held that sexual differences as such would be annulled by the resurrection. The sexual differences between man and woman, while certainly manifesting physical attributes, in fact transcend the purely physical and touch the very mystery of the person.� With respect of my query about the relationship between the image of God and the image of the Son, there is a whole section with this part being particularly useful: "53. The origins of man are to be found in Christ: for he is created "through him and in him" (Col 1:16), "the Word [who is] the life�and the light of every man who is coming into the world" (John 1:3-4, 9). While it is true that man is created ex nihilo, it can also be said that he is created from the fullness (ex plenitudine) of Christ himself who is at once the creator, the mediator and the end of man. The Father destined us to be his sons and daughters, and "to be conformed to the image of his Son, who is the firstborn of many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). Thus, what it means to be created in the imago Dei is only fully revealed to us in the imago Christi. In him, we find the total receptivity to the Father which should characterize our own existence, the openness to the other in an attitude of service which should characterize our relations with our brothers and sisters in Christ, and the mercy and love for others which Christ, as the image of the Father, displays for us." The document acknowledges current "controversy" regarding the respective roles of men and women, their particular dignity and gifts. Sigh. | ||||
|
Good reference, Ryan. That's quiet a comprehensive discussion on Imago Dei and human nature. Point #36 has relevance to the discussion on male headship found on another forum. | ||||
|
Freebird, it is true that your statements in your posts have usually grandiose character. This can be misinterpreted in different ways. I think it is good to consider what Phil suggested above namely "If there's a significant gap between what you mean to be conveying and what others are perceiving, then that's good to know." | ||||
|
Here is an interesting summary of traditional (i.e., Thomistic/scholastic) thinking on risen bodies. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm
| ||||
|
[/qb][/QUOTE] Phil: Thanks for this excellent link. So much there. I may pick up on this thread again after my eight day retreat which starts this afternoon. Or not. We'll see. | ||||
|
What about Mark�s statement, �Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils�? (Mark 16:9). Bear in mind that no one witnessed the actual resurrection of Jesus, so no one could testify as to the moment. Thus, this passage is describing, not the time of the resurrection, but the time of Jesus� appearing to Mary. The Greek texts have no punctuation, so all the commas and periods are left to the translators. Just put the comma in the right place and all becomes clear. �Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene.� Also note in Mark�s testimony that the first person to see Jesus alive was Mary. That confirms that no one saw the moment of the resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing in the Gospel accounts to dispute that Jesus rose from the dead Saturday evening rather than Sunday morning. Three days and three nights from His burial would naturally take us to an evening. http://www.rondart.com/Book%20...20three%20nights.htm | ||||
|
The topic is not about the "when" of Jesus' resurrection, wopik, which you've discussed with us on other threads. It's about the "when" of the resurrection of those raised up by Christ -- does it begin in this life? Etc. | ||||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Shalom Place Community Shalom Place Discussion Groups General Discussion Forums Christian Morality and Theology death and resurrection when?