Christian afterlife

What are your thoughts on my "interpretation"?

  • I've NOT heard of your explanation before, I think it's right

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
okay so like elijahs rapture (and Jesus' at the afformentioned ascencion day) is like a seperate event from the end times thing. same with the flood. anyway again that's not important
I started to think about elijah's thing in connection with the afterlife but now we're sort of in judaism

Anyway so

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

I don't know what shew means
but I feel especially with 52 there: suddenly (after all these years) the dead shall rise, changed. Can this not be that the dead rise from the grave? in a very literal sense?

RD means "real discussion", which is basically meant to be moderated more strictly to discuss a topic, unlike regular threads that can be more floating conversations

DE means the thread should be in german lol, that's pretty abandoned now

sorry if I'm mean, I am honestly happy you said you'd think about it

Thanks for the explanation about RD and DE. Haha DE = Deutsch

'Shew' is old english for the modern day word 'show'. Yes, the dead (in Christ) shall arise first during the rapture and receive their glorified bodies. Then we who are alive and remain will meet them in the air also receiving our new glorified bodies. In case you're wondering I only read the King James version of the bible as it is the closest thing in english to the original Hebrew and Greek translations.

Remember to be absent from the body is to be with Christ. Or if one didn't believe in Christ then they go to hell. At the end of the Great Tribulation, or Jacob's trouble, hell will release their dead who will then be judged.
I'll answer some of your original questions for you tomorrow as I am getting ready to go to bed now. Glad I could help. :thumbsup:
 
The King James Bible has obvious edits from the start of Genesis.
 
It's been a while since I read the threads, but I'm pretty sure I remember our resident (or maybe semi-resident now as sadly he doesn't seem to be around that much) theologian @Plotinus recommending the RSV and NRSV as the best English translations of the Bible.
 
I got summoned into this thread. As it happens I'm writing a book about heaven right now so I do know a bit about it.

Basically, Lohrenswald's interpretation is pretty close. In New Testament times, there was no generally agreed-on notion of life after death within Judaism. Some Jewish groups believed in it and some didn't. Those who did generally thought in terms of a future bodily resurrection. So for example, take Daniel 12:1-3:

Daniel 12:1-3 said:
At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people, shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

The Pharisees were one group who believed in this. In Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus is questioned about this topic as if he were a Pharisee, and interestingly he seems to accept the Pharisaic view there, or at least not distance himself from it. Paul, meanwhile, actually was a Pharisee, and teaches this idea more explicitly:

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 said:
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

You'll notice that Paul assumes in that passage that he and his readers will still be alive when this happens, because the early Christians thought that the end times were very nearly upon them. This is because they believed that Jesus' resurrection was basically the beginning of the general resurrection of the dead that would happen at the end of history. Paul is quite explicit about this, calling Christ's resurrection the "first fruits" - that is, the first ripe fruit of autumn that herald the coming harvest:

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 said:
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For "God has put all things under his feet." But when it says "All things are put in subjection", it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

And there are similar ideas in other, non-Pauline parts of the New Testament. In Matthew 25:31-46, we are told that the Son of Man will judge the nations at the end of time according to their works, and in Revelation 20:11-15 the same idea recurs, with the added detail that this includes those who have died:

Revelation 20:11-21:1 said:
Then I saw a great white throne and the one who sat on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works, as recorded in the books. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

So the general picture in the New Testament is that you die, and then at the end of time God will raise everyone from the dead and judge them, after which the blessed will pass into eternal life, and the damned will not.

However, this got complicated in early Christianity by getting mixed up with the idea that you have an immortal soul which survives the death of your body. This is not entirely alien to the Bible (2 Corinthians 4-5 and Luke 23:43 arguably hint at such an idea) but it's usually associated with Greek thought, both popular religion and Platonism. Christianity was certainly heavily influenced by Platonism and made a lot of this idea. So what we find by roughly the fourth century is a fairly standard amalgamation of these different ideas. Christians by this time generally believed that humans have an immaterial soul as well as a physical body. When you die, your soul leaves your body and it goes somewhere else. If you are good then it goes to heaven to be with God, and if you are not good then it doesn't. In Catholic theology, this is called the "particular judgement". In the fourteenth century, when there was a controversy about this, Pope Benedict XII described the state of the blessed in heaven like this:

Benedict XII said:
According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints… and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died… or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death)… already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment – and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven – have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.

However, at the end of time, God raises your body from the dead and your soul returns to it. Then you are judged, and after that you spend eternity either happily or unhappily, depending on the judgement, but you do so in your physical body, which is not subject to ageing or disease. The Catholic Catechism describes this state like this:

Catechism 1045 said:
For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been “in the nature of sacrament”. Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, “the holy city” of God, “the Bride, the wife of the Lamb”. She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community. The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.

So you have a two-stage afterlife: a first, temporary, bodiless state in heaven, followed by the resurrection of the body and the general judgement, and then a permanent, embodied state in the new heavens and the new earth. (Of course, to make things complicated it was also believed that for most people, the first state isn't heaven at all but purgatory, where they go to be purified; only the saints go straight to heaven upon their deaths.)

Now at the Reformation this view was challenged. Some of the Protestant Reformers, notably Martin Luther himself and William Tyndale, promoted the idea of "soul sleep". On this view, there is no first stage to the afterlife at all. The soul either "sleeps" or ceases to exist entirely upon your death. So this was something of a return to the picture given in the New Testament, which is almost entirely focused on the future resurrection. This remained a common, but minority, view among Protestants for quite a long time.

Today, the trend has rather reversed itself, at least among ordinary believers, because we find that most Christians of whatever denomination think mostly in terms of "going to heaven" as what happens to you upon death, and have little consciousness of the notion of the resurrection of the body. The New Testament scholar and popular religious writer N.T. Wright has written at length about this state of affairs, which he thinks is pernicious and contrary to the Bible. Among academic theologians, as usual, the opposite view is more common, with the idea of the temporary "heaven" downplayed and much more emphasis on the future resurrection of the dead. This is in line with the common view of theologians - like philosophers - that the idea of an immortal soul is unbiblical and not rationally tenable today.

I only read the King James version of the bible as it is the closest thing in english to the original Hebrew and Greek translations.

It is not! You won't find biblical scholars using it. The NRSV is the standard scholarly translation used today. Plus of course, even if the King James version were perfectly accurate, the language it is written in is archaic modern English, not English as it is commonly spoken today. But the New Testament was not written in an archaic language, it was written in Koine Greek, which was a vulgar form of the language.
 
And eventually I became a "hardcore atheist", which is a label that has some baggage today, but that's a whole other thing.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hardcore atheist" - people, especially in the US, are already confused enough with definition of "atheist" but if the point is being cool you could be going as commando atheist, especially in winter.
More likely than that I assume you mean that not only do you not believe in any of presented god claims you also believe that no god(s) exists. In that case "anti-theist" would be a better term. I'm not claiming it's (the only) right term but it's better.
 
More likely than that I assume you mean that not only do you not believe in any of presented god claims you also believe that no god(s) exists. In that case "anti-theist" would be a better term. I'm not claiming it's (the only) right term but it's better.

The problem there is that "anti-theist" suggests that you're opposed to theism or regard theists as your enemy in some way. But someone could believe that no gods exist and yet be perfectly friendly towards theists. Indeed it's quite possible to believe that no gods exist but wish that they did, but it would be misleading to call that anti-theism, I think.
 
Oh yes I'm aware of the problem but that's the way people denying the existense of any god(s) often identify themselves. Might've started gaining popularity with C Hitchens, or not - I really don't know but I assume it's still a better term than hardcore atheist.

As this is interesting what term would you suggest to be used in English to describe a person who believes that no god(s) exist? Anti-deist any better?
 
I wouldn't use "anti-" at all. I'd just call such a person an atheist. There is a difference between someone who lacks any belief in gods and someone who believes no gods exist, but I don't think it's enough of a difference in practical terms to require a different name in everyday speech. If one is required then I'd call the person who lacks belief in gods but also lacks belief in no-gods an agnostic, which I'm aware isn't entirely accurate but is surely close enough for practical purposes.
 
That was quick, thx. I also assume that if this was simple a proper term would've emerged ages ago.
 
If you are really interested in what what that hippie Jesus is alleged to have said on the subject of the afterlife, read the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the first four books of the New Testament. Most of the rest of the NT is based on Paul's teachings and letters to various groups of Christians in Greece.

Basically, Jesus was fairly vague about it except that it would happen, and those who did not accept God would be forever separated from God the Fathers, and that those who accepted God would join Jesus in Heaven. One could interpret this as meaning Heaven is effing awesome! and God is totally into spoiling his new Heavenly children. But the point of religious tomes is to be just vague enough that believers can interpret them in enough ways to allow the adherent to justify any action.

There are literally dozens of Protestant denominations in the US alone, not to mention different denominations on other continents, with quite different interpretations of what really happens after death. Trying to pin down one totally agreed upon version is impossible, and the template is empty enough to fill in any BS one wants.

And there would be even more variety if Gnostics and other heretics hadn't been suppressed.
Apparently 25% of people who consider themselves Christian in the UK don't believe in the literal truth of the resurrection. Even odder is the 9% of people who don't consider themselves Christian but say they do believe in the literal truth of the resurrection.
 
Bible Versions

I don't want to get sidetracked here on discussing which version of the bible is the best. All I know is that in many of the non KJV of the bible there are some subtle differences that change the whole meaning of God's message. I'm no theologian but I do know where the Holy Spirit leads me. I go by what He guides me. I know that may sound crazy to a lot of people but when you accept Jesus as your savior He fills you with the Holy Spirit which guides you and rebuilds you.

That being said let's compare the KJV Galatians 2:20 with the NSRV (Anglicized version). There are many examples of this but I choose this one because it pertains to the whole core of salvation.

See if you can spot the difference and why it's important to get the message correctly.

KJV Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

NSRVA Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
 
As promised let me see if I can tackle your original question here.

Short version of the "fake view", as I believe this is not the real christian belief, is I think well known. When you die, your "soul" leaves for either heaven or hell, in the former often thought as you become an angel. How literally this is up and down, depends.

This actually is the "real view". Many organized churches, i.e. Unitarian, Catholic, Protestant, etc., say this is fake because the organized religions want to front load and back load a bunch of conditions on the message to lead you astray. My advice is if you are in doubt ask God himself. Jesus said, and I'm paraphrasing, that He would never not give you knowledge if you ask for it. "Ask and you shall receive."

Why do I say this? Because Christianity is not about religion but more about a personal relationship with God. God loves you and wants you to get to know Him better and develop a relationship with you. Just because someone goes to church does not mean they are saved.

Now here's what I mean is actually the case (or the actual christian view):
When you die, you are put to rest in the ground. You're lieing there, doing nothing. This is why you can say "rest in peace". This is how ghosts can fit in, people who are dead but not resting in peace. If you're in hell, you're obviously not resting in peace, if you're in heaven, you would maybe be extatic in stead.

The bible says that to be absent from the body is to be with Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:6-8
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

So you see, our bodies are composed of a fleshly body housing a spiritual soul. The flesh and the soul are at war with each other when we don't have Christ. Because all of us have fallen short of the Glory of God our fleshly bodies die. But our soul goes on to live in eternity in either heaven or hell. When you accept Christ as savior your fleshly body will still die but your soul will live forever in heaven. Even better after the rapture occurs you are given a new glorified body to house your soul in which will allow you to dwell on earth and in heaven.


And so this is where the afterlife really comes in. The end of the world begins, and all those who've died, who've been resting in peace for centuries and millenia, rise up from the grave, completely physically with bodies, not some vague ghostly soul. They're then judged, the sinners either go to a kind of hell or are just destroyed, and the people deemed worthy of eternal life, live eternally here on the earth. The earth is transformed in various ways, I kinda remember something about the ocean dissapearing, but the thing is they rise from the grave and don't have any further vertical translation, and then get to live forever.

The end of the world

Before the 7 year tribulation begins in which God pours out His wrath on a God rejecting world the believers will be raptured. But not before those who have died believing in Christ are raised first, or more accurately their souls come down from heaven to meet up with the resurrected glorified bodies. Then we are still alive will join them in the air to also have our fleshly bodies transformed in a twinkling of an eye into our glorified body and then all will be with Christ.

Judgement day is for the unbelievers and occurs after the tribulation is completed.
 
I mean to be honest I feel a bit "vindicated" by what plotinus said, and that I don't have much more to add. I feel he even managed to tie it neatly up with the various doubts I started to get partway through the thread.

So now I no longer want RD because I feel the central problem has been adressed, and it's fine to explore tangents more. That being said I did this somewhat of a "clinical excamination of christianity", but actual believers have shown up and they engage with this in a very different way

For ecample Moff Jerjerrod, who it seems to me places himself pretty neatly into the "lay believer" category I and Plotinus mentioned.
So one thing is the king james bible versus nsrv, you're upset it differs from kj, that it is wrong, in some sense. But the idea that considering the original koine greek version, which still exists in its original (I think, at least mostly), that the nsrv is the more correct one, and kj has mistakes. Because of course an earlier translation doesn't mean it's better
Why do I say this? Because Christianity is not about religion but more about a personal relationship with God.
So I'm not a believer, and I'm kinda firm in that, but: I've lived in a protestant country all my life, and they seem to me to stress this aspect. But because of life experiences etc. and so on I'm more impressed by catholisism which like, doesn't seperate the people from eachother like this. I think the bible says the church is to be universal and common. so like the people can have relationships with eachother as well as with god, and with god as a group.
So I don't think this is a good way to go about it. I mean as an outsider my opinion is kinda worthless, but if for some reason I became a christian, I couldn't see myself being a protestant
I'm not sure what you mean by "hardcore atheist"
You know I was a teenager and I think I had thoughts about christians as "sheeple" and I was smart for not believing. At least a little bit.
I care a lot less now, and yea don't antagonise theists. And in the last few years I've had some good experiences with the ritual aspects of the religion (weddings and funerals).
But I might have turned around a bit again and like, I don't mind people believing, for the most part, but I do think it doesn't hold water, and being religious is in some way "intelectually dishonest"
 
So I'm not a believer, and I'm kinda firm in that, but: I've lived in a protestant country all my life, and they seem to me to stress this aspect. But because of life experiences etc. and so on I'm more impressed by catholisism which like, doesn't seperate the people from eachother like this. I think the bible says the church is to be universal and common. so like the people can have relationships with eachother as well as with god, and with god as a group.
So I don't think this is a good way to go about it. I mean as an outsider my opinion is kinda worthless, but if for some reason I became a christian, I couldn't see myself being a protestant

I apologize if I forgot to mention that in addition to having a personal relationship with God we then become part of His family. Of course we need to build relationships with each other as well. This includes believers and non-believers. Just because one accepts the faith does not mean they should stop having relations with non-believers.
 
Bible Versions

I don't want to get sidetracked here on discussing which version of the bible is the best. All I know is that in many of the non KJV of the bible there are some subtle differences that change the whole meaning of God's message. I'm no theologian but I do know where the Holy Spirit leads me. I go by what He guides me. I know that may sound crazy to a lot of people but when you accept Jesus as your savior He fills you with the Holy Spirit which guides you and rebuilds you.

That being said let's compare the KJV Galatians 2:20 with the NSRV (Anglicized version). There are many examples of this but I choose this one because it pertains to the whole core of salvation.

See if you can spot the difference and why it's important to get the message correctly.

KJV Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

NSRVA Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Aren't those differences reason not to use the KJV, given the better translational accuracy of the NRSV (at least, according to people who seem to know what they're talking about)? If it's that fundamental to salvation, surely you would want the version that is closer to the original (and thus presumably more accurate)? Or are you saying that the original writers of the Bible got it wrong, and, then, what, God corrected them by divinely inspiring the writers of the KJV?
 
I care a lot less now, and yea don't antagonise theists.

Yeah, that's not nearly as easy here or there than I assume it's in US.
Atheists are called in so many ways, often wrongly, though that can apply to pretty much every concept within organized religion that in general it'd be helpful if the terminology was even slightly more unified. Besides I like clear definitions.

So how's life? Are you any to closer to claiming the Crown there as it's clearly rightfully yours?
 
Aren't those differences reason not to use the KJV, given the better translational accuracy of the NRSV (at least, according to people who seem to know what they're talking about)? If it's that fundamental to salvation, surely you would want the version that is closer to the original (and thus presumably more accurate)? Or are you saying that the original writers of the Bible got it wrong, and, then, what, God corrected them by divinely inspiring the writers of the KJV?


What I was trying to illustrate by comparing that verse between those two different bible versions is that:

One is saying 'I am crucified with Christ' (KJV) and the other says 'I have been crucified with Christ' (NRSV)

There is a difference here in the wording. 'Am' crucified conveys a permanency that 'have been' does not. Once saved always saved. If one has to conduct works in order to maintain his salvation then why did Jesus die on the cross?

The next difference I was trying to show is in the following:

The KJV says 'I live by the faith of the son of God' whereas the NRSV says 'I live by the faith in the son of God'.

Again the difference at first glance might be insignificant but they are both two different concepts. To live by faith of God means that that faith is given to you by almighty God whereas to live by faith in God puts the emphasis on man and disrespects God.

It's not a matter of who got the translation correct word for word but who got the translation correct meaning for meaning. Remember something said in one language may have no equivalent in another language or might mean something else entirely. Translators must take that into account in addition to getting the words correctly translated.
 
Bible Versions

I don't want to get sidetracked here on discussing which version of the bible is the best. All I know is that in many of the non KJV of the bible there are some subtle differences that change the whole meaning of God's message. I'm no theologian but I do know where the Holy Spirit leads me. I go by what He guides me. I know that may sound crazy to a lot of people but when you accept Jesus as your savior He fills you with the Holy Spirit which guides you and rebuilds you.

That being said let's compare the KJV Galatians 2:20 with the NSRV (Anglicized version). There are many examples of this but I choose this one because it pertains to the whole core of salvation.

See if you can spot the difference and why it's important to get the message correctly.

KJV Galatians 2:20
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

NSRVA Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
We know the KJV spawned its own offshoot protestant religions. If you are an adherent to one of those religions, your faith will lead you to declare it the correct meaning.

But if you are an original text literalist, you would have to correct your "wrong" faith to a more literal translation, and accept that your belief was imperfect if perfectly earnest. But that's a different religion than one of the KJV offshoots.
 
I think when trying to discern the various cosmologies, there will be a function of the literal interpretation. So, different denominations will believe different things. My suspicion is that there's no true version of the Bible that is discoverable in the Modern Age. Everything is just people trying to people in a way that represents their best efforts to know God
 
Back
Top Bottom