Will we be naked in heaven?

[HermanNeutics13]

This is something I have wondered myself. The Garden of Eden was the original paradise and Adam and Eve were naked. There is reference to white garments in heaven but considering much of the description of heaven is symbolic, hwo do we know the garments aren't as well?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Why do people assume we will devolve back to nakedness? Adam and eve were naked because they never needed clothes. They didn't know about clothes etc. We know about clothes we know about nakedness if you guys wanna be naked in the next life go ahead but i'll be keeping some clothes on.

 

[dlamberth]

We can draw logical conclusions about what our resurrected bodies will be like from looking at jesus resurrected body. Looking at what he did inside that body.

There are those who reach out and look into the full expanse of the Universe (both the seen and unseen) and see Christ's Resurrected Body in all that they see. I agree with your conclusion, but in a different sort of way that is not focused on or even bounded by the Human Body.

 

[Aryeh]

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for your reply and I understand the point you make. But if I accept the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but not that you and I will be bodily resurrected (because we wont have bodies left to resurrect) is that necessarily heretical?

It would still be heretical, yes; but how would one go about believing in Jesus' resurrection and reject the future resurrection when Scripture is explicitly clear that these are separate things, but intricately related. Consider the following,

"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." - 1 Corinthians 15:20-23

"But our citizenship comes from heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself." - Philippians 3:20-21

Christ's resurrection means our resurrection. Christ is the "first fruits of those who have died", that is, He is the very first to have been raised from the dead, and thus the evidence, the demonstration, of God's victory over death of which we shall be partakers, when we ourselves shall be raised. At Christ's coming the dead shall be raised, and at that time our body will be transformed, conformed to be like the body He has. Christ has a body, He was raised from the dead, His tomb was empty, and it was glorified, transfigured; likewise so shall our body be raised, be glorified, transfigured.

Your problem seems to stem entirely from the idea that our bodies will have decayed, become dust, or otherwise have been dispersed--thus there is no body to raise. It's not like Christians have been ignorant of what happens to the body after death--that it decays, that it rots, that it eventually returns to dust; traditional funeral rites involve words similar to the following:

"For as much as it has pleased our Heavenly Father in His wise providence to take unto Himself our beloved ___________________, we therefore commit his or her body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, looking for the blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God in our Savior Jesus Christ who shall change the body of our humiliation and fashion it anew in the likeness of His own body of glory according to the working of His mighty power wherewith He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself."

Or (from the Catholic breviary),
"Because God has chosen to call our brother/sister N. from this life to himself, we commit his/her body to the earth [or the deep or the elements or its resting place], for we are dust and unto dust we shall return. But the Lord Jesus Christ will change our mortal bodies to be like his in glory, for he is risen, the firstborn from the dead. So let us commend our brother/sister to the Lord, that the Lord may embrace him/her in peace and raise up his/her body on the last day."

There's never been any doubt about what happens to the body as it decomposes, "dust to dust", but this has never been regarded as a problem for the resurrection. For God to restore what has been lost to decay seems like a trivial matter. How, or in what way, isn't up for us to speculate; but to simply deny the resurrection isn't an option for one who is a Christian. Because resurrection is Christianity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I worry that the bible, intended as a spiritual guide,

That's not the purpose of the Bible.

The Bible developed over the centuries as the canon of those texts, regarded as sacred, which the Church receives, confesses, and encounters Christ, the Word of God. The Bible serves as a witness to point us to Christ, the truth and reality and hope of Christ for His people. We can find spiritual guidance in Scripture, but the Bible's purpose isn't to be a spiritual guide, or as a book of rules, or a compendium of propositions; but as a witness, a "testamentum" (hence Old and New "Testament"), to Christ Jesus our Lord and the Church's faith and hope in Him. The Bible doesn't mean anything without Christ or without the Church's faith and hope in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

When Adam and Eve were still perfect, they had clothes made of light.

This is based on what?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So why than is a body even needed in Heaven. I can see why in this physical world a body is needed to clothe the soul. But why it's needed in a spiritual place like Heaven, that makes no sense to me. Especially when, as you suggest, body functions cease.

The idea of a "soul" encased in flesh is, fundamentally, a foreign idea to Christianity. Human beings aren't enfleshed souls, they are ensouled bodies. We aren't souls in a body, we are bodies with soul, with the breath of life, more than a dead corpse, alive; but alive as fully fleshy, solid creatures with bone and tissue.

Which is precisely why Christians have always confessed the resurrection of the body. Because our destination isn't "heaven", but this very world of ours; so yes, we will be bodied creatures here on earth, because that's the Christian hope: Christ will come again, the dead will be raised, and God will make all creation new.

If, however, one believes that we are nothing more than "souls" wearing "earthsuits" that are to be discarded so that we can go dwell in the cloud lands strumming harps as wisps of ethereal something-or-other then, sure, resurrection, bodily existence, and this world itself don't really matter; our "true" existence as spirits in the great spiritual pleroma is all that matters and this present existence is at best a testing ground or at worst a prison.

I don't believe that. I believe this life matters. I believe the things of this world matter. I believe that everything that is good and lovely has permanence--our love for one another, friendships, family, art, the natural beauty, kindness, etc are beautiful, wonderful things and aren't going to disappear forever, lost forever, but have a concrete, real permanence that will never be lost.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dlamberth]

If, however, one believes that we are nothing more than "souls" wearing "earthsuits" that are to be discarded so that we can go dwell in the cloud lands strumming harps as wisps of ethereal something-or-other then, sure, resurrection, bodily existence, and this world itself don't really matter; our "true" existence as spirits in the great spiritual pleroma is all that matters and this present existence is at best a testing ground or at worst a prison.

If one see's the creatures of the earth, people, souls, the earth as well as all of the Cosmos as an activity of God Himself, it becomes just the opposite as what your suggesting. The soul of trees, the soul of the earth or even the soul of human beings making their appearance in this physical world matters. It matters because God matters. When finding the Soul of God with in the whole of this Creation, it all becomes something way more than just a testing bed. And Sacredness is not a prison.

 

[juvenissun]

So why than is a body even needed in Heaven. I can see why in this physical world a body is needed to clothe the soul. But why it's needed in a spiritual place like Heaven, that makes no sense to me. Especially when, as you suggest, body functions cease.

A person needs some visual characters for identification. That is why.
If one's heavenly sight can "SEE" a particular spirit, then that, IS the body.
Reasonable?

 

[juvenissun]

This thread is a simple example of how a book such as the bible, authored in order to set a spiritual paradigm, is used in ways that are beyond its intention. Even in this simple thread we have an opinion that is categoric - we come back in a physical body (though we dont know what age we appear as ); others state no its a spiritual body, while others think its some sort of body where we choose our clothing and a whole vast number of variances in between.

The same issue crops up so often - eg a discussion about the age of our universe.

I worry that the bible, intended as a spiritual guide, is being used to describe things it was never intended for. In this case I think the fact is none of us know and to get such fine detail from the bible might be drawing beyond its intended scope.... and I think similarly about discussions regarding so many other topics.

Don't worry. That is nothing to worry about. Instead, we should be glad that we do have hints given by the Bible. It is better than other religions in which nothing is implied and is in total darkness.

The Bible gives hints, and we guess. What is wrong with that? I think it is very fun.

 

[Zoii]

Don't worry. That is nothing to worry about. Instead, we should be glad that we do have hints given by the Bible. It is better than other religions in which nothing is implied and is in total darkness.

The Bible gives hints, and we guess. What is wrong with that? I think it is very fun.

well fine but many here would argue that point

 

[dlamberth]

A person needs some visual characters for identification. That is why.
If one's heavenly sight can "SEE" a particular spirit, then that, IS the body.
Reasonable?

The person needs visual identification, no so the soul.

 

[Aryeh]

.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But why did they choose to call them God or Gods? Why not something else.

You seem to assume that the term existed before the concept.
Man projects himself into everything. The impulse to assume human(-like) agency behind any phenomenon is pretty much part of our heritage, and a by-product of our developing individual consciousness.
So, after assuming that natural phenomena were caused by supernatural entities with human-like motivations, feelings, and moral values, calling them "spirits" or "gods" or "demons" was just a technicality, really. "Invisible people who've got power over us" is too clunky.

Why do we as a people generally believe in the supernatural when none of us can prove it yet we know its there.

Because so many people have a VERY poor grasp of the nuts and bolts of how our reality works. (And I include myself in that assessment: parts of the natural sciences are completely arcane to me.)

This has been with us since man existed.

True. Because we didn't know any better.

And its never going away.

False. Globally speaking, the percentage of non-religious people is steadily increasing - even while religious fundamentalism struggles hard to usher in a new dark age of deliberate ignorance and reactionary morality.

Then we would run into the problem that life without God really doesn't have meaning and even evolution understood that and evolved humans in a way that gave them a fulfillment of meaning through evolved processes that led to all(most?) humans experiencing the supernatural on some level.

Can extraneous meaning ever be truly meaningful to us, without turning into a dystopian nightmare? Could we ever be happy if our meaning and purpose was determined by somebody else? I'd say the ONLY way we can truly find fulfilment is by being true to ourselves, by being who we are and becoming the best version of us we can possibly be. Theistic purpose would turn us into little more than serfs or robots, created for a specific purpose regardless of whether we want to pursue it or not.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Jane_The_Bane

I'd argue for a few points.
1. It seems a little farfetched in my view to think that you can have all these experiences, all these sources from different parts of the world where these cultures couldn't have been collaborating together to come up with gods and demons etc, and here we do in history in fact see that to be the case that they all concluded there were gods and demons. Either they all had some kind of teaching from the same source(adam and eve?) or they all concluded it based off of human logic and experience and what makes the most sense. I don't think we should underestimate our ancestors intelligence. Knowledge sure but these people didn't have lower iqs than people now.

2.Why put on science what it can't do. Why assume science will be able to solve every problem every question. Do you believe theres no limit to science and that its the only way to know truth? That seems to be asking something from science it was never meant to give.

3.Atheism is increasing surely we both can see that and agree with that. However you are asking a lot for a world where there is no belief. I don't think such a world can exist. Even if you somehow scientifically proved that we are just a bag of random meaningless chemicals people would still believe in something. Without meaning humans wouldn't function as efficiently as we do. It's hard wired in us to believe our lives have meaning and to search for what that meaning is. I believe that is by design.

4. I think you have a misunderstanding of theism. Theistic purpose is a lot more flexible than god creating people and saying you will be this and you will be that. What theistic purpose from the christian perspective isn't god forcing us into a box of limited choice but one in which he not only opens the box we are in and takes us out of it but he destroys that box and we are set free. With being free we are able to make our own choices as to what we want to do with our lives. The christian God especially is a God who is nonrestrictive.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Consequence of bible prophecy, canon and the appearance of a Son of God described in the bible.
There is enough information in the canon to understand that if Christ is THE Adam that didn't fail, then His appearance - like Moses and Elijah - represents what Adam (mankind) is supposed to look like.


Adam and Eve weren't "babes," or God rather was NOT so confused that He would charge Adam with having dominion over an ENTIRE PLANET - but, he doesn't even realize he is naked! They realized their FOLLY when their eyes were "opened." Their opening was a false awakening, and they realized this when they exchanged their dominion for duality, and lost their glory.

And, as I said, there are apocryphal that thoroughly, and deceptively describe this in great detail. But, there is enough in the Canon.

Nothing says Elijah and Moses had clothes made out of light on Mt. Tabor, nor that Jesus did or does. Ostensibly the reason why Adam and Eve suddenly "realize" they are naked in the text is that with the introduction of sin enters shame; there was no shame previously due to their innocence, but with knowledge of sin comes shame; and since in the ancient near east nudity was a taboo, it was shameful to be naked in those cultures that is how the text indicates the loss of innocence. There's no reason to make the leap that Adam and Eve had clothes made out of light.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

The person needs visual identification, no so the soul.

Why not? My soul is different from you soul. If my soul don't have any detectable identity, how would anyone know my existence?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I'd argue for a few points.
1. It seems a little farfetched in my view to think that you can have all these experiences, all these sources from different parts of the world where these cultures couldn't have been collaborating together to come up with gods and demons etc, and here we do in history in fact see that to be the case that they all concluded there were gods and demons. Either they all had some kind of teaching from the same source(adam and eve?) or they all concluded it based off of human logic and experience and what makes the most sense. I don't think we should underestimate our ancestors intelligence. Knowledge sure but these people didn't have lower iqs than people now.

Well, since the early 20th century, raw IQ test scores HAVE improved in most parts of the world, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. The average rate was approximately three points per decade.
That aside, false conclusions about the natural world are not necessarily a question of intelligence, but of available methods of acquiring knowledge. In a culture that knows nothing about geology and glaciers, it is not altogether unreasonable to assume that an erratic boulder was placed there by a giant (even if there have never been giants). I a culture that has no means of detecting microscopic organisms, it is not altogether unreasonable to assume that disease is a supernatural phenomenon. And so on and so forth. Anthropomorphisms are a pseudo-explanation to phenomena not yet properly understood.

2.Why put on science what it can't do. Why assume science will be able to solve every problem every question. Do you believe theres no limit to science and that its the only way to know truth? That seems to be asking something from science it was never meant to give.

I'm strictly looking at what science *can* do, i.e. understanding the natural world. It's just that so much of the natural world has once been attributed to the supernatural - and still is, by superstitious and religious people. It's astonishing to see normally educated people attribute earthquakes or tornados to something other than plate tectonics or weather patterns in the 21st century.

3.Atheism is increasing surely we both can see that and agree with that. However you are asking a lot for a world where there is no belief. I don't think such a world can exist. Even if you somehow scientifically proved that we are just a bag of random meaningless chemicals people would still believe in something. Without meaning humans wouldn't function as efficiently as we do. It's hard wired in us to believe our lives have meaning and to search for what that meaning is. I believe that is by design.

Of course we need meaning, and we are pretty good at finding it. Imbuing things with meaning is pretty much our "thing", and we constantly move through a world laden with symbolic layers upon layers. Language, for example.
Where we disagree is that any kind of personal deity is necessary for that. Just as a snowflake doesn't need a snow fairy artist turning it into a unique piece of craftsmanship, I find that reality in and of itself is a far greater miracle than most versions of theism give it credit for.

4. I think you have a misunderstanding of theism. Theistic purpose is a lot more flexible than god creating people and saying you will be this and you will be that. What theistic purpose from the christian perspective isn't god forcing us into a box of limited choice but one in which he not only opens the box we are in and takes us out of it but he destroys that box and we are set free. With being free we are able to make our own choices as to what we want to do with our lives. The christian God especially is a God who is nonrestrictive.

Except that eternal torment is promised to all who do not carry the right membership card, and every attempt at stepping out of line is considered sufficient justification for a cosmic death camp that makes Auschwitz look like a spa.

 

[Aryeh]

.