Will we be naked in heaven?

[Ken Rank]

What about the fruitful and multiply verse?

That line comes early, the fall happens before there are children. So I don't have a great answer, but I tend to think that the statement is a blanket one... just like the Torah containing the information that would be used by any future kings but given at a time when the only "King" was God Himself. Did I say that well? It would be many years before Israel would desire a human king yet God included laws pertaining the kings behavior long before then. It was through childbirth that a savior would be born, so perhaps being fruitful and multiplying was a command given before that act was even possible.

I don't know... I am not dogmatic about this.

 

[Zoii]

Firstly, I'm not calling you a heretic. Secondly, it's not heretical "in my opinion", it's simply a matter of fact that the orthodox teaching of the Christian religion asserts the resurrection of the body,

"We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to the life in the age to come. Amen." - From the Nicene Creed

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen." - From the Apostles' Creed

(the original Latin is carnis resurrectionem, literally "resurrection of flesh")

"When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, 'Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?' And the one being baptized shall answer, 'I believe.' He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. Then he shall ask, 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?' When each has answered, 'I believe,' he shall baptize a second time. Then he shall ask, 'Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?' Then each being baptized shall answer, 'I believe.' And thus let him baptize the third time." - St. Hippolytus, Apostolic Traditions 21:12-18, early 3rd century

"The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. And in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation And in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord. And [the Holy Spirit proclaimed] His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one," and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess" to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all." St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.1, late 2nd century

This isn't about my opinion, this is about what Christianity, objectively speaking, has always taught. It's what Jesus, the Apostles, and all Christians since then have believed, taught, and confessed.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for your answer. While I dont agree with your view I accept your position. Its a shame you chose to tell me

The idea that we will exist as immaterial spirits in a place called "Heaven" floating around is, fundamentally, heretical,

as I interpreted that anyone having spiritual view of resurrection was a heretic.

 

[Sammy-San]

Thank you for your answer. While I dont agree with your view I accept your position. Its a shame you chose to tell me
as I interpreted that anyone having spiritual view of resurrection was a heretic.

The Dreaded Day of Judgment: Is God going to humiliate us in Heaven?

Humans are spiritual beings who are temporarily cruising around in physical bodies which we call earthsuits. When humans die, their souls will leave their earthsuits like an astronaut stepping out of his spacesuit, and only their souls will go on to eternity.

Now when we talk about things like gender and ethnicity, we’re talking about earthsuit qualities. Human souls do not have gender, a sex drive, or DNA.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for your answer. While I dont agree with your view I accept your position. Its a shame you chose to tell me
as I interpreted that anyone having spiritual view of resurrection was a heretic.

It would be heresy to believe that resurrection is "spiritual", as it denies that Jesus rose from the dead and it denies the very core of the Christian religion. I wasn't accusing you of being a heretic, I was pointing out that such a view is heretical and is heresy for the sake of pointing out its incompatibility with the Christian religion.

I'm not using heresy and heretical (nor would the word heretic) be used here as some sort of pejorative; but as a contrast with orthodoxy. Something which is not orthodox is, by definition, heretical. The Greek hairesis means "choice" or "opinion" and indicates holding to an alternative view than that which is accepted and regarded as correct--that is, orthodox.

But, yes, if you identify as a Christian and you reject one of the most fundamental and central teachings of the Christian religion--more central than virtually any other teaching--then that would place you in the camp of heresy as far as the historic orthodoxy of the Christian Church is concerned.

A rejection of the resurrection is a rejection of the most central aspect of the Christian religion; if Jesus remained dead and buried, then He's certainly not the Christ and thus should not be called Jesus Christ; He would be just another failed messiah, at best a martyr; Jesus' teachings while in many ways radical were quite within the general framework of Pharisaical Judaism--and thus a Jewish martyr expressing a profound non-violent ethic as a contrast to the way of the Zealots. Jesus is, therefore, just another footnote in the long history of the powerful crushing the powerless. That even reckons His most important teachings concerning the kingdom of God nothing more than a rather vain, empty hope--the kingdom of God no longer is a profound driving force revealing the impotence of violent power, undercutting it, and ultimately reckoning it meaningless in light of His dying and rising; it is at best a utopian-like vision of a world that never is. Entropy wins.

If, therefore, we desire hope then we should seek out a new world view entirely. There are plenty of religions, philosophies, and ways of engaging the world that don't involve Jesus or that can accept Jesus the unfortunate victim of tyranny. But Christianity remains, in toto, a non-option.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zoii]

It would be heresy to believe that resurrection is "spiritual", as it denies that Jesus rose from the dead and it denies the very core of the Christian religion. I wasn't accusing you of being a heretic, I was pointing out that such a view is heretical and is heresy for the sake of pointing out its incompatibility with the Christian religion.

I'm not using heresy and heretical (nor would the word heretic) be used here as some sort of pejorative; but as a contrast with orthodoxy. Something which is not orthodox is, by definition, heretical. The Greek hairesis means "choice" or "opinion" and indicates holding to an alternative view than that which is accepted and regarded as correct--that is, orthodox.

But, yes, if you identify as a Christian and you reject one of the most fundamental and central teachings of the Christian religion--more central than virtually any other teaching--then that would place you in the camp of heresy as far as the historic orthodoxy of the Christian Church is concerned.

A rejection of the resurrection is a rejection of the most central aspect of the Christian religion; if Jesus remained dead and buried, then He's certainly not the Christ and thus should not be called Jesus Christ; He would be just another failed messiah, at best a martyr; Jesus' teachings while in many ways radical were quite within the general framework of Pharisaical Judaism--and thus a Jewish martyr expressing a profound non-violent ethic as a contrast to the way of the Zealots. Jesus is, therefore, just another footnote in the long history of the powerful crushing the powerless. That even reckons His most important teachings concerning the kingdom of God nothing more than a rather vain, empty hope--the kingdom of God no longer is a profound driving force revealing the impotence of violent power, undercutting it, and ultimately reckoning it meaningless in light of His dying and rising; it is at best a utopian-like vision of a world that never is. Entropy wins.

If, therefore, we desire hope then we should seek out a new world view entirely. There are plenty of religions, philosophies, and ways of engaging the world that don't involve Jesus or that can accept Jesus the unfortunate victim of tyranny. But Christianity remains, in toto, a non-option.

-CryptoLutheran

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?

 

[Dave-W]

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?

Zoii - I would strongly encourage you to watch this video and carefully consider Dr Prince's points in this issue:

 

[TheOldWays]

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?

No. Your beliefs sound fine. I'm not a Christian but it sounds like you believe the important stuff. No one knows what the afterlife will look like so believe whatever makes sense to you.

 

[Robban]

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?

Have heard that if one found a grain of corn from the pyramids,
put in the Earth let rain and sun do their job it would spire up giving tenfold again.

How much more so then the fantstic Creation of each individual.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Ever think instead of saying oh well theres all these religions so none could be true that where theres smoke theres fire?

Historically speaking, religions are homo sapiens's attempt at understanding a world that was mostly incomprehensible and uncontrollable to him at the time.
A flood destroys your village? You must have done something to anger the river god. Better sacrifice a goat next year to prevent it from happening again.
That rock over there looks peculiar and out of place? A giant must have hurled it there, or else it's a person who's been turned to stone by some angry deity.

Going through history, you see God/the gods becoming less and less malevolent as man's understanding and control of the natural world increased. In the most ancient faiths, there's hardly any distinction between a god and a demon: both are inscrutable supernatural entities that need appeasing to prevent all sorts of disaster from happening. If you don't understand lightning and don't know how to construct a lightning rod, elaborate rituals to appease the storm deity must seem like a better option that doing nothing about it and just waiting for calamity to strike.
Religion gave people the illusion of control, at a time when they had little. That's the key to its success.

Of course, this is somewhat of an oversimplification. Historically speaking, many religions were closely intertwined with the quest for new knowledge and scientific inquiry, as well as with philosophy. It's only in recent centuries that religion has failed to expand its horizons with the rest of the world, and sees itself more and more in opposition to the new insights into reality we acquired.
Fundamentalism is a backlash against the discoveries of the last 200 years, a desperate attempt to turn back the clock to a time when all the answers were to be found in the Bible (or Quran, or Vedas, or...)

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Historically speaking, religions are homo sapiens's attempt at understanding a world that was mostly incomprehensible and uncontrollable to him at the time.
A flood destroys your village? You must have done something to anger the river god. Better sacrifice a goat next year to prevent it from happening again.
That rock over there looks peculiar and out of place? A giant must have hurled it there, or else it's a person who's been turned to stone by some angry deity.

Going through history, you see God/the gods becoming less and less malevolent as man's understanding and control of the natural world increased. In the most ancient faiths, there's hardly any distinction between a god and a demon: both are inscrutable supernatural entities that need appeasing to prevent all sorts of disaster from happening. If you don't understand lightning and don't know how to construct a lightning rod, elaborate rituals to appease the storm deity must seem like a better option that doing nothing about it and just waiting for calamity to strike.
Religion gave people the illusion of control, at a time when they had little. That's the key to its success.

Of course, this is somewhat of an oversimplification. Historically speaking, many religions were closely intertwined with the quest for new knowledge and scientific inquiry, as well as with philosophy. It's only in recent centuries that religion has failed to expand its horizons with the rest of the world, and sees itself more and more in opposition to the new insights into reality we acquired.
Fundamentalism is a backlash against the discoveries of the last 200 years, a desperate attempt to turn back the clock to a time when all the answers were to be found in the Bible (or Quran, or Vedas, or...)

But why did they choose to call them God or Gods? Why not something else. Why do we as a people generally believe in the supernatural when none of us can prove it yet we know its there. This has been with us since man existed. And its never going away. Either there really is something out there or as you say that gut feeling ingrained in the depths of our souls is nothing more than some genetic mutation evolved to give us meaning and purpose and comfort in a dangerous world. 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.

 

[Robban]

I have a good feeling you will be

A darkness fell upon me as one who has been cut off.
Once an arrow has been shot,
there is no taking it back.

But I shall delete them so they will continue no more.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

A darkness fell upon me as one who has been cut off.
Once an arrow has been shot,
there is no taking it back.

But I shall delete them so they will continue no more.

I wish I knew what this meant but i think this verse applies here.

Rom 2:14

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.

Now of course you are jewish and not a gentile yet the point of that verse is those who don't believe in christ will be judged by whether or not they followed the law. So if you did your best to follow the law then you will be saved. This goes for any one not saved. Its really good news I think. Because I know a lot of people wonder why someone who is a good person but rejected jesus wouldn't have eternal life but some terrible saved sinner makes it instead. This verse answers that very question.

Also good news is all of israel will be saved

Rom 11:25

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


I know jews currently believe they are still in gods favor but even if they arent and the bible is true at least they will be reunited with God again. If this helps in any way i'm glad if it doesn't then scrap it.

 

[Robban]

I wish I knew what this meant but i think this verse applies here.

Rom 2:14

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.

Now of course you are jewish and not a gentile yet the point of that verse is those who don't believe in christ will be judged by whether or not they followed the law. So if you did your best to follow the law then you will be saved. This goes for any one not saved. Its really good news I think. Because I know a lot of people wonder why someone who is a good person but rejected jesus wouldn't have eternal life but some terrible saved sinner makes it instead. This verse answers that very question.

Also good news is all of israel will be saved

Rom 11:25

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27

For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.


I know jews currently believe they are still in gods favor but even if they arent and the bible is true at least they will be reunited with God again. If this helps in any way i'm glad if it doesn't then scrap it.

No, it is something else.

Hopefully just a shot across the bows,
but enough to warn.

Our words have great significants
in the heavens,

 

[Robban]

Even Moses, after he said,
"If you will not forgive them, strike my name out of the book you are writing."
His name does not appear anymore for the rest of that piece.

Further more,
And G-d said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, him, I will erase from
My book!" Exodus 32:33

Does it not say also in Revelations,
"Those who had not their name in the book of Life?"

 

[Robban]

Maybe I should not be here,

I ask myself this often.

 

[juvenissun]

According to Genesis, Adam and Eve were frollicking in their birthday suits. They only covered up after they disobeyed God. Wouldn't be wearing clothes in heaven would be reminding God of the original sin?

Christians will have a better body in the Heaven. I guess clothes are not needed. There will be no sexual activity there anyway. Yes, there no need for laundry, and even shower is not needed. Because there is no dirt there. We will not even produce any body waste.

Well, I guess we still can wear some clothes for the sake of beauty and variation.

 

[dlamberth]

Christians will have a better body in the Heaven. I guess clothes are not needed. There will be no sexual activity there anyway. Yes, there no need for laundry, and even shower is not needed. Because there is no dirt there. We will not even produce any body waste.

Well, I guess we still can wear some clothes for the sake of beauty and variation.

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.

 

[awitch]

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.

Physical bodies, clothing optional, no sex...

Does anyone else get the impression that heaven is the most boring nudist resort of all time?

 

[Zoii]

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.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

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.

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. He was able to enter locked rooms with his mind. He still ate even though clearly he had no physical need for it. He was also not naked during his reappearance. Theres many other conclusions we can draw but the ones i have stated are practically undeniable.