The Afterlife of The Saved

[Bare_Truth]

There seem to be many ideas of what the afterlife of the Bible believing saved will be like. They range all the way
-- from the Saducees, (Ok they are not Christians but they claimed to get their ideas from what Bible there was at the time), who believed according to:

Acts 23:8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

so they seemed to be saying this life is all there is.
-- to some groups that say that we will be the same sort of being that God is based on:

1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
------ and ------
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

-- And I remember that when I was a child growing up in the Methodist Church being told that when people die they becomes angels in heaven, which I suppose some might support by citing

Mark 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
------ and ------
Luke 20: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

But which may be criticized based on the context of the statement. which is really about the institution of marriage and not an expounding of the general characteristics of the saved after death.
------ and also appears to be at odds with ------

Hebrews 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

which seems to be contrasting "man" with what we currently know about Jesus, so that man being made a little lower than the angels in the past and yet all things are to be put under him. "All things" would appear to include the Angels so this either puts the future of saved mankind above the angels or possibly all the way up to being the same sort of being as God as noted above to be the theory of some groups.

Ok, that should be enough examples of what I am proposing for discussion in the way of theories held by some and how they support them. Please add to these concepts (including supporting the biblical basis) of the afterlife of the saved and critique those already presented by me or others.

Of course it is fair to ask the question based on

1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be....

Are we yet smart/informed enough to know any more than what was known to John when he wrote that?

[Petros]

Not going to spit on my hands and dig in at this end of this day.

But I am inclined to suggest that the postulazted afterlives are not so much the blind men with the elephant as blind engineers trying to work out a black box problem by lidstening to thed hum of the instruments.

Not that one does not have hypotheses and guesses, but there is only one way to check one's answer and nobody has come back to give a detaled report. [Herself migt bring up near death experiences, but I would maintain we have no way to confirm that NEAR death provides data on WHOLE HOG death].

[Bare_Truth]

Not going to spit on my hands and dig in at this end of this day.

Ok, so I will chalk your response up to basically taking the out given in:

1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be....

of course since there had been discussion previous to John penning this, we can perhaps speculate that the question was being asked about 2000 years ago.

[Petros]

We are told the Egyptian medico, after checking his readings, would pronounce [putting it in crude terms]:

A. No big deal, I can fix this

B. We can give this condition the old college try.

C. No way I touch this one - is the mastAba ready?

For the didymist scholar, rough parallels are:

A. It should be clear to the meanest intelligence that, as I said in my paper presented at the Berlin symposium last year .....

B. While the data are not conclusive, there are strong suggestions that ....,

C. It is an interesting question, but the lack of adequate data precludes our speculating ...

My professor put the three more elegantly, and performed the intellectual triAge masterfully.

While fully recognizing that by no means all [indeed, not enough] are didymist by inclination, and that different researchers have access to different data, so that some may plow the field where I - though no angel - fear to tread, and in many cses not fruitlessly, I, from where I sit, have to say that the data bearing on this point, while suggestive, do not allow me to take a stand,

[natman]

Paul constantly points to Christ as the example and promise of the Resurrection.

When Christ resurrected, He arose in a physical body and although He had been glorified, He retained enough of His physical attributes that if someone looked at Him closely, they could recognize Him. He even retained the scars in His hands and feet, enough to convince Thomas that He was indeed Jesus, the Christ.

As such, I believe that we will also be resurrected into physical bodies that are the same or very similar to the ones we have now, but glorified.

Also, I do not think we will become "angels". Angels are non-corporeal (non-physical) creatures, designed to surround and glorify God and to act as intermediaries (messengers, the base of the word "angelos"). The Bible says that God made us a little lower than the angles, not the same as the angels (Heb 2, Psalms .

In Heaven and after the Resurrection, I think that there will be no more procreation. Otherwise, sometime in eternity, every square inch of the New Earth would be covered with humans. As such, there would be no need to marry in order to raise a family. Further, the current marriage relationship is a shadow and example of the relationship we will have directly with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, I also believe that we will retain our gender, which provides an emotional and spiritual balance.

[Bare_Truth]

In Heaven and after the Resurrection, I think that there will be no more procreation. ...... As such, there would be no need to marry in order to raise a family.

Further, the current marriage relationship is a shadow and example of the relationship we will have directly with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

However, I also believe that we will retain our gender, which provides an emotional and spiritual balance.

The 2nd and 3rd points noted above raise an interesting question that I heard being debated.

The question was, would we still have sex (of a non-procreative sort in the resurrection)?
Person#1 argued that was ridiculous because:
Mat 22:30
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Luke 20:3
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
And Person#1 asserted that this showed that angels are sexless, and that we would be like the angels, sexless.

But Person #2 countered with:
No, those scriptures only deal with the matter of marriage. Sex = reproduction for us here and now, but if we do not reproduce in the resurrection, then the meaning that attaches to sex would be very different.

So then since you say quite reasonably that that marriage now only reflects our relationship with God, and you argue for our retention of gender then your position would more favorably align somewhat with person #2.

Of course there may be some who will fly off the handle trying to apply the rules of sex which are necessary and applicable to our present existence to the afterlife and suggest that to even ask such a question is heresy.

So it is only fair to ask you if you think that since you speculate that we will have gender, will have "something or anything" like sex in the afterlife. It is a pretty good thing so it would take something pretty super to replace it. and we do have the Psalmist's testimony:
Psa 16:11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

Let the speculation begin, and remember that to ask a question is not heresy or sin so long as it is not intended to be a lead in to something else (and no such intention is present here, just food for thought).

P.S. Petros, I am looking forward to see what response you might craft for this one.

[Petros]

Ah, phooey. I had planned not to let myself be drawn in / drawn out on this topic [not that into discussing sex / gender / relationships]. But when you tag that on how can I stay outr?

So: This is a topic herself and I have, as it happens, discussed quite a bit., and come to some [tentative, of course, like we have been there and checked it out?] mutually satisfactory conclusions.

A. sex, like breathing and eating, is a function of this physical terrestrial body, its primary purpose being procreation as the primary purpose of eating and breathing is powering thge mechanism.

B. whilde we are led to expect afterbodies, it is clear [popping up in the middle of a locked room, the ascension, perhaps - less certainly - the transfiguration] that it is not designed the same way, not adapted to terrestrial life as this body doing the typing is. While it is clear the resurrected Christ COULD eat, it is not at all certain he needed to eat / breathe, and while the passages on marriage do not speak to the subject, sex as we know it is unlikely [and when you think of it, how very improbable copulation is!].

C. at the same time, there is reason to believe that the soul / person essence is maintained; we do not merge into the oneness, Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration strongly support that.

D. Just as we are here drawn to and bond with certain ones in ways that, while in some cases they may be accompanied by sexual activity, are not caused by or limited by sexual activity, so we should expect our person essence / soul in the resurrection body to recognize, be drawn to, bond with our [you should pardon it] soul mate in the afterwards.

E. I fully expect to find there my inner circle [probably a bit expanded from the inner ciorcle I currently recognize] and do not doubt that Herself and I will be an item.

F. This will of course not detract from our relationship as individuals and couple with God, any more than now it negatively impacts our individual and joint bonds to Number 1 Son.

G. A flaw in the thinking of certain ones, that I have often discussed in Linguistics and applies at least as much here, is an inability or unwillingness [I will spare you the quote from my professor] to draw conclusions - to them idle speculations] that are more than one step removed from what they cabnnot help seeing with their two eyes.

H. In speculating on heaven, we are not just blind men , we are also leprous [check the effect of the disease on tactile sensation], deaf, and don't smell so good. We know very little of the elephant.

[Bare_Truth]

..... A. sex, like breathing and eating, is a function of this physical terrestrial body, its primary purpose being procreation as the primary purpose of eating and breathing is powering thge mechanism.....

That definition won't work for me.

Sex is an ecstatic intimate experience with one other involving a merging with the one that complements/completes the other. It fosters the bond that initiated it creating a union greater than originally existed. It may from time to time expand the couple into a family. It may be observed that, if used in a careless or inappropriate manner it may lead to severely negative consequences Including great difficulty to achieve the highest level of bond.

Or at least that has been my experience of it. But I think I have defined it in a human context as opppsed to an animal one. For clearly sex among animals appears to lack some of those components. Your definition is however entirely adequate for the animal realm and all aspects you cite are in some sense present among humans

But when you say that:

sex, like breathing and eating, is a function of this physical terrestrial body,......

if I consider "like" in a very broad and literal sense, and compare it to eating or breathing, I have to wonder if I know how to eat or breathe , not to mention that eating or breathing requires only one individual.

RATS! Now we are at risk of turning this strip into a debate on what is the definition of sex, which is a separate topic altogether.

[jochanaan]

I have begun to wonder if perhaps all of our interactions in the afterlife--assuming it's with God--will take on a joyous intensity greater than any mutual orgasm--forgive my bluntness, but I was not the one who "raised" this topic--here in our delimited physical bodies...

[Bare_Truth]

I have begun to wonder if perhaps all of our interactions in the afterlife--assuming it's with God--will take on a joyous intensity greater than any mutual orgasm--forgive my bluntness ...

You will need no forgiveness from this quarter.

... in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

And intuitively to me it seems that those will be very high order pleasures. So I would expect them to pale into insignificance most of what we call pleasures now in this material world. I do not think that we are lusting after pleasure here but rather trying to grasp just one facet of the immense promises given to us.

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

So if we are to have spiritual bodies, and all indications are that such a body is far more capable than the one we have, I would think that our experience of pleasure then will be higher than most of what we know now.

[Petros]

Cher collegue -

Thou hast said, "Sex is an ecstatic intimate experience with one other involving a merging with the one that complements/completes the other. It fosters the bond that initiated it creating a union greater than originally existed. It may from time to time expand the couple into a family. It may be observed that, if used in a careless or inappropriate manner it may lead to severely negative consequences Including great difficulty to achieve the highest level of bond." Far be it from me to disagree.

Nor do I wish to focus on sex.

Shall we do food? I sit down to a meal [as I did this noontide] with Herself. The occasion is special. The ambience - well, not glamorous, but very much to our taste. The food - I will say only the ribs were without doubt the best I have tasted, even from that source. The conversation [and of course the company] stimulating. I am not about to believe that the Canine Companion, much as he loves his vittles, is capable of that style, even if he be capableof that level, of pleasure. AND bonding.

I say again, the primary role of the bodily functions is to maintain individual and species. That is good enough for Canis familiaris and works okay for Homo sapiens.

But I would say that we are a lichen amalgamating the earthy and mortal Homo sapiens with the Image [I could go pseudoLinnean and try out Imago dei].

My brother the paleontologist and fined upstanding atheist would likely say that our ability to love, to worship, to weep at a sunset, to appreciate a finely nuanced meal, and the like, which set us off from other entities [as far as we know] are bodily functions and conditioned responses which are simply one outcome of our evolutionary path. The question then must be, what is the evolutionary / reproductive advantage of falling silent in awe on the mountaintop[?

You are of course free to see otherwise - it is not something we can test here at any rate. But I am convinced that the bonding is not of the body but of the soul.

As a lichen [I prefer that image to the more conventional haunted robot], yes, I do seek experiences that stroke both components. Sex with love, sated belly with delighted palate, etc. But unlike the lichen, body and soul WILL separate. And hey, mon, I simply do not know the essential characteristics, needs, desires, abilities, of the body to come.

[bn2bnude]

I have begun to wonder if perhaps all of our interactions in the afterlife--assuming it's with God--will take on a joyous intensity greater than any mutual orgasm--forgive my bluntness, but I was not the one who "raised" this topic--here in our delimited physical bodies...

My wife has similar thoughts. Her justification for that is that we are his bride...

[Bare_Truth]

..... My wife has similar thoughts. Her justification for that is that we are his bride...

I suspect that our wives are blessed with a better, or at least fuller, grasp of what being his bride means, especially the more consistently we are the husbands we ought to be.

[Petros]

In our case, there is the interesting [though I think never actually discussed, though Herself and I have touched the fringes question:

One assumes that one's individuality will remain and be recognizable, and that for example my father, should he make it [I have no certainty either way] would attain a level of sdpiritual health as far above Herself's mother's brightness was above his darkness.

But given that, would I then be able to process and work with emotion [which at present I must sip as cautiously as Albanian home brew, lest it burn me up] as freely as Herself?

As I sit in this body and place, it is impossible to think of heaven as orgasmic. But we do NOT know what / how we shall be.

[ezduzit]

I`ve read this strip with much interest ....................
My 3 cents worth..........

I`ve decided to seek a position to oversee Parks and Recreation when I get to heaven.
Should any of you wish to reserve a site beside / on the " River Of Life" , please contact me using a PM, and I`ll reply with a PO BOX # and fees , note all reservations are final no refunds will be given.
Ez