Jan Shipps Said *What*?!

[Chris Smith]

The bit about most Protestants and Catholics believing in immortality of the soul rather than resurrection may well be accurate. Those who are deeply immersed in biblical theology, of course, tend to believe in resurrection. But for whatever reason, folk-belief leans considerably toward immortality of the soul.

[rhinomelon]

More like the "mainstreamers" managed to hold on to a few vestiges of the pure doctrine of Christ. wink.gif

Tomato, tomahto...

It's a pretty common belief I come across though I can't tell you who believes what. They believe that a resurrected spiritual body is not a physical body. In addition, some believe that those who experience damnation experience the destruction of the soul, in other words, they are snuffed out of existence completely.

CFR. Many believe that the material body will be different in the resurrection, just as Christ's resurrection body was different from his pre-resurrection body (not subject to deterioration, could pass through walls yet be touched and handled, i.e. perfected). But I don't know of any official statements denying the bodily resurrection (and I know of hundreds that affirm it). So, CFR.

One of the "logic" problems I've alway's had with many non-LDS religions is if Christ does "currently" have a body, why and how???

He is after all supposed to be "God", a third "part" not separate from the Father, supposed to be perfect and Eternal, etc. etc.

So, why wouldn't he just be "spirit" like the Father supposudly is???

Along the same lines, why would "we" even have body's after, the "Father" is so "different" from us? If matter is so "inferior" and not of God's nature, what's the "importance" of body's then, i.e. what the necessity for a Resurrection???

How could something so "different" from the Father actually live and inherit all He has? And on and on.

Lot's of problems they ignore in order to accept their version of the "Trinity".

None of these are problems at all, once one understands the doctrine. Christ is the incarnate Son, the mediator between God and man, being fully God and fully man. Christ is still the mediator, still the high priest of the book of Hebrews, etc. Why wouldn't he retain his human nature? Being embodied is an integral part of his human nature.

We have bodies after the resurrection because we were created as embodied beings. One cannot be a human being apart from being an embodied creature. The "importance" of bodies lies in the simple fact that if we are not embodied, we are certainly not perfected human beings, but something different.

As far as your last question goes, one could ask the same thing of the Holy Ghost in LDS theology. No body, yet considered God? By your definition, that is a logical quandary that LDS ignore in order to accept their version of the "Godhead".

To sum up, I think this response and my earlier responses demonstrate why mainstream Christianity considers the resurrection of the body to be absolutely fundamental. Bodies are an indispensable part of what it means to be human, which is why we will always have them and Christ still has his.

Take care, everyone

[Hamba Tuhan]

The bit about most Protestants and Catholics believing in immortality of the soul rather than resurrection may well be accurate. Those who are deeply immersed in biblical theology, of course, tend to believe in resurrection. But for whatever reason, folk-belief leans considerably toward immortality of the soul.

My personal experiences would suggest that Chris is right.

This is purely anecdotal, but I served my mission in America and was repeatedly flummoxed by the fact that every single person I taught minus one Jehovah's Witness at one point or another said that s/he had never before believed in a literal physical resurrection. I used to ask these people (all of them Christians already) what they believed the promise of resurrection to be then, and I never really got a satisfactory answer. Some of them were unaware that resurrection applied to anyone but Jesus. Others explained it as a kind of 'spiritual' event, but they never really seemed to know what they meant by that, especially after we pointed out to them that resurrection is the Bible's specific antidote to physical death.

Common amongst all these responses was a general dislike of the material or a sense that the body is completely lacking in any utility. One investigator, when pressed on the issue, insisted that she was sure that Jesus does not currently have a physical body because it would just 'limit' Him. I asked her what had happened to His body, and she half-seriously suggested that maybe He had hung it up on a hook somewhere. In any case, she claimed she had no need whatsoever for her own body after this life.

In addition, I have a very good Muslim friend from Aceh (in Indonesia) who feels he can talk to me frankly about religion. One night he started reciting for me his list of complaints against Christianity, specific points where he thinks Christians have 'lost the plot.' Number 2 or 3 on his list was that Christians do not believe in literal physical resurrection. When I told him that I do, he said that I was the first Christian he'd ever met who did.

[smac97]

Weird. So when Paul told the Roman Saints that "the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead...shall also quicken your mortal bodies...," was he just kidding around?

When Job said "Though this body be destroyed, yet in my flesh shall I see God," was he deceived?

When God said, "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up...," was he referring to spirit bodies (not physical bodies)?

When Pau told the Phillippians that "the Savior...shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," wasn't he speaking about physical bodies?

Jesus had a physical body after he resurrected. John said "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."

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

Weird.

Weird, indeed. When I first started my mission, I thought I was prepared for all kinds of issues that people would find difficult to accept, but I had no idea that the reality of resurrection was going to be one of them. (And most of the issues I'd thought would be problems, weren't. Go figure.) The good news in my case is that most of the people I worked with are now active Latter-day Saints who firmly believe in the literal physical resurrection so clearly taught in the Bible.

On another note, my PhD research in history involves a part of the world which was simultaneously Islamising and Christianising in the 16th century, and the Jesuit letters/reports which make up the bulk of my primary sources contain some interesting statements in relation to this topic. In particular, a number of priests complained about the relative attractiveness of Islam to the indigenous populations because their 'eternal hope' was centred in 'carnal pleasure.' The more I've read, the more I've seen this as a rejection of the logical underpinnings of literal physical resurrection. If the Catholic idea of a purely 'spiritual' reward was supposed to trump the Muslim idea of a physical paradise to be enjoyed by physical people, it calls into question the very desirability of resurrection.

[Hamba Tuhan]

By the way, though I'm no theologian, I have a strong sense that broad rejection of the implications of the resurrection contributes heavily to some of the more egregious anti-Mormon battlecries:

--the Mormon God has a body

--the Mormon God enjoys celestial sex with a harem of wives

--Mormons believe they can become like God

--the Mormon God is an extraterrestrial who lives on another planet

--Mormons believe that they will spend all eternity having celestial sex

etc.

Every one of these charges, though specifically designed to be shocking, works in part, I suspect, beacause, like 16th-century Catholic priests, the average Christian feels a bit iffy about the material implications of resurrection.

[Chris Smith]

For what it's worth, there's a strong evangelical movement these days to revive resurrection, not only because it is biblical but also because physicalism seems more consistent with twenty-first century neruoscience than the old body-spirit dualisms.

[Hamba Tuhan]

For what it's worth, there's a strong evangelical movement these days to revive resurrection, not only because it is biblical but also because physicalism seems more consistent with twenty-first century neruoscience than the old body-spirit dualisms.

I wish this movement well!

By the way, Chris, the concept of 'reviving resurrection' makes me smile.

[rhinomelon]

For what it's worth, there's a strong evangelical movement these days to revive resurrection, not only because it is biblical but also because physicalism seems more consistent with twenty-first century neruoscience than the old body-spirit dualisms.

I really had no idea that resurrection needed reviving! Who's at the forefront of this evangelical movement? I've never run into a problem with resurrection, honestly.

On another note, my PhD research in history involves a part of the world which was simultaneously Islamising and Christianising in the 16th century, and the Jesuit letters/reports which make up the bulk of my primary sources contain some interesting statements in relation to this topic.

Just out of curiosity, where are you doing your PhD research, and what's your main focus? I'm pretty interested in this stuff. I actually found out today that I've been accepted into the PhD program at Durham University, looking into Mormon approaches to patristics. I'm trying to break into the PhD world!

Take care, everyone

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I've been accepted into the PhD program at Durham University, looking into Mormon approaches to patristics.

Congrats! Have you read Bickmore's book yet? Or how about Nibley's Mormonism and Early Christianity?

[rhinomelon]

Thanks, Drew! I haven't read Bickmore's book yet, but I will. I've skimmed through Nibley's, but not in an in-depth manner. I've got that one and "Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity", which I'll be integrating into my research.

[Chris Smith]

I really had no idea that resurrection needed reviving! Who's at the forefront of this evangelical movement? I've never run into a problem with resurrection, honestly.

N. T. Wright (Surprised by Hope) is the name that springs immediately to mind. Thomas Oden and Randy Alcorn have also been a part of this effort. I never even heard of resurrection until junior high or high school, and even then had to discover it on my own, outside a church setting. And I say that as someone raised devoutly evangelical from the cradle.

Thanks, Drew! I haven't read Bickmore's book yet, but I will. I've skimmed through Nibley's, but not in an in-depth manner. I've got that one and "Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity", which I'll be integrating into my research.

If it's apostles/bishops/priesthood that you're researching, Bickmore's book won't be good for much except as a foil. He does OK in other categories, but really blows the priesthood section.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just out of curiosity, where are you doing your PhD research, and what's your main focus? I'm pretty interested in this stuff. I actually found out today that I've been accepted into the PhD program at Durham University, looking into Mormon approaches to patristics. I'm trying to break into the PhD world!

As I said, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not even a religious historian. My main focus is on trying to disentangle and then reconstruct indigenous narratives from the midst of European (primarily Jesuit)-constructed texts.

Congratulations on your acceptance, and good luck! My one piece of 'expert advice': PhDs are earnt less through intelligenge and more through sheer endurance....

[MatthewG]

I actually found out today that I've been accepted into the PhD program at Durham University, looking into Mormon approaches to patristics. I'm trying to break into the PhD world!

Take care, everyone

Durham University in the UK?

[rhinomelon]

N. T. Wright (Surprised by Hope) is the name that springs immediately to mind. Thomas Oden and Randy Alcorn have also been a part of this effort. I never even heard of resurrection until junior high or high school, and even then had to discover it on my own, outside a church setting. And I say that as someone raised devoutly evangelical from the cradle.

That's really interesting. That's my background, and I heard about resurrection all the time. Of course, you are from California, soooo...

If it's apostles/bishops/priesthood that you're researching, Bickmore's book won't be good for much except as a foil. He does OK in other categories, but really blows the priesthood section.

What I'm more focused on is just the Mormon interest in patristics in general, and how it fits into Mormon self-identity. I'm sure some of it will be evaluating some LDS works on the subject, but I don't think that will be my main focus.

Congratulations on your acceptance, and good luck! My one piece of 'expert advice': PhDs are earnt less through intelligenge and more through sheer endurance....

So my sister tells me (she's working on her dissertation right now). We'll see if I've got the Right Stuff. Thanks for the congrats!

Take care, everyone

[T-Shirt]

I've heard of the belief that Christ doesn't currently have a body, but I've never heard of that from any official sources.

What would be an official source for a protestant, just curious?

There are a few individuals who reject it, but none speak for Christianity in any official capacity.

Again, just curious, who does speak for Christianity in an official capacity?

All the best,

T-Shirt

[rhinomelon]

What would be an official source for a protestant, just curious?

I was thinking more in terms of denominational statements of faith, denominational leaders (Archbishop of Canterbury, SBC convention, etc.). Or even prominent theologians, for that matter. I just haven't heard the resurrection of the body ignored or devalued at all.

And yes to an earlier question, this is the Durham University in England.

Take care, everyone