Eternal Life vs Immortality

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
I attended Catholic catechism as a youth in the decade of the 1950's. My
siblings and I were not given the full blown catechism to study. We were
given little handbooks that contained just enough information to get us past
First Holy Communion and Confirmation.

As a result, the difference between immortality and eternal life was never
explained because that was information we didn't need to know in order to
pass First Holy Communion and Confirmation. Maybe things are different
now: I wouldn't know, nor do I care to know.

Immortality always refers to a supernatural body that's impervious to aging,
death, and putrefaction. As such, immortality is something that Christ's
believing followers expect to obtain sometime in the future rather than the
present.

†. Rom 8:23-25 . .We ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan
inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our
bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at
all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not
yet have, we wait for it patiently.

The New Testament Greek word for "hope" in that passage is elpis (el pece')
which means to anticipate (usually with pleasure); and to expect with
confidence. Note the elements of anticipation, expectation, and confidence.

In other words: elpis hope isn't a cross-your-fingers kind of hope. It's a kind
of hope that looks forward to something as a sure thing. So then, people
crossing their fingers, while in the backs of their minds dreading the worst;
do not have elpis hope. They simply have a longing for something better,
but with absolutely no assurance whatsoever of obtaining it.

Eternal life, on the other hand; has nothing to do with the nature of a
supernatural body, but rather, the psychological nature of a divine being.

I am a human being; hence I have the psychological nature of a human
being. God is a divine being, hence He has the psychological nature of a
divine being.

Christ had the psychological nature of a divine being before he got here.

†. John 5:26 . . Just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the
Son also to have life in Himself

†. 1 John 1:2 . .The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we
proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared
to us.

Clearly then; eternal life isn't physical because before he came to the earth,
Christ was spirit as per John 1:1-3.

The psychological nature of human life was created as per the book of
Genesis. But the psychological nature of eternal life wasn't created; it
couldn't be created because eternal life is the life of God; the divine being
who never had a beginning; viz: God always was, God always is, and God
always will be.

So then, the possession of eternal life doesn't make one a divine being, nor
does it make one an eternal being. It only equips them with the
psychological nature of God; which is pretty amazing itself.

Is what I'm saying true? Well; Peter seemed to think so.

†. 2Pet 1:3-4 . . His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to
life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His
own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious
and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become
partakers of the divine nature.

I don't know if the nuns who taught my catechism classes knew any and/or
all of the stuff that I've composed here because they never mentioned it. But
even if they had, I was doubtless too young at the time to digest it.

It's doesn't take a Th.D to appreciate just how much easier it would be for a
human to relate to God if humans had His nature instead of their nature.
And that, by the way, is the primary reason why Jesus Christ distributes
eternal life to the sheep whom God entrusts to his care.

†. John 17:2-3 . .You have given Your son authority over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as You have given him. And this is
eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ
whom You have sent.

The divine nature isn't an organic kind of life, viz: it's a supernatural kind of
life; which is how it's possible for people to have it while mortal. In other
words: eternal life isn't meant to keep people from dying. For example:
Jesus Christ had eternal life (John 5:26, Col 2:9, 1John 1:1-2) but though
he's immortal now (Rom 6:9) he wasn't immortal when he was here-- the
cross proved that much.

So then, although the grammatical tense of John 3:36, John 5:24. John 6:47,
and 1John 5:13 assures me that I have eternal life in the here and now; at
the same time, Gen 3:19 and 1Cor 15:53 assure me that I am not immortal.

†. Ecc 7:2 . . It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house
of gaiety, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this
seriously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Divine Insight]

Clearly then; eternal life isn't physical because before he came to the earth,
Christ was spirit as per John 1:1-3.

This is a very informative observation.

If Christ was spirit before he came to earth, then why was he not able to become spirit again upon leaving the earth?

The stories of Christ having him resurrecting in a wounded physical body that hadn't even been healed since we have accounts of his disciples poking their fingers into his wounds to insure that he was indeed physical and not a spiritual ghost.

And according to these stories Christ took this wounded physical body with him to heaven.

So there seems to be some serious problems with any claims made by Christianity that heaven is a spiritual realm.

Christianity tells us that Christ was not the only one to do this as well. Christianity has many dead saints physically raising from their graves. We can only assume that they too then must have physically ascended to heaven since they don't appear to still be here on earth.

I also can't help but wonder what would have happened had Jesus been beheaded? Upon resurrection would he then have needed to carry his head around with him in his hands? Because apparently physical bodies that are resurrected are not healed of their physical wounds.

Are we to assume that Jesus physical body was eventually restored to pristine condition when he finally got to heaven?

And if so, what happened to the idea that he was spirit before he was incarnated into a physical body? Is having a physical body better than being a spirit? And if not, then why didn't Jesus just revert back to his natural spiritual state and become "resurrected" as a "Spiritual Ghost"?

It would seem to me that in keeping with this fantasy, Jesus should have raised from the dead as a spiritual ghost. To raise up as a physical zombie complete with the wounds that had killed him makes no sense. That seems more fitting for a Saturday night horror flick.

[WebersHome]

-

[font=Georgia]If Christ was spirit before he came to earth, then why was he not able to
become spirit again upon leaving the earth?[/font]

[font=Georgia]According to John 1:1-3, Christ pre-existed as a divine being labeled the
Word-- clearly identified (in normal Bibles) as God; the intelligent designer
of all life, matter, and energy spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis.

Well; seeing as how God is impervious to death, then when the Word
became human, His spirit existence didn't cease--in point of fact: it couldn't
cease; viz: Christ existed on the earth as a spirit being and a human being
simultaneously.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Divine Insight]

Well; seeing as how God is impervious to death, then when the Word
became human, His spirit existence didn't cease--in point of fact: it couldn't
cease; viz: Christ existed on the earth as a spirit being and a human being
simultaneously.

That doesn't even remotely address the question of why it would have then been necessarily for Christ to rise again in a physical body, and even take that physical body back with him to heaven.

And also why wasn't that physical body healed of its physical wounds?

My answer to these questions is quite simple. This mythology is no different from all the other man-made God myths and it contains precisely the very same kind of superstitious nonsense that all other God Myths contain.

We could just as easily be discussing why Apollo, the son of Zeus and Leto, isn't still here among us. And there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't take those conversations just as seriously as the Hebrew mythology that you've bought up here.

[WebersHome]

-

[font=Georgia]the question of why it would have then been necessarily for Christ to rise
again in a physical body[/font]

[font=Georgia]Christ predicted that his crucified body would revive. In point of fact, Christ
predicted that it would be he himself who revived it. (John 2:19-22).

It was essential, therefore, that Christ's crucified body recover or Christianity
would be easily proven false. In other words: the return to life of his
crucified body validated Christ's claim that he spoke for God.

†. John 3:34 . . For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's
Spirit is upon him without measure or limit

†. John 8:26 . .He that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
things which I have heard of Him.

†. John 8:28 . . I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak these things
as the Father taught me.

†. John 12:49 . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

†. John 14:24 . .The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who
sent me.[/font]

[font=Georgia]why wasn't that physical body healed of its physical wounds?[/font]

[font=Georgia]I'm of the opinion that Christ's crucified body was fully healed when it
returned to life. In other words: he showed his friends the scars.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Divine Insight]

Christ predicted that his crucified body would revive. In point of fact, Christ
predicted that it would be he himself who revived it. (John 2:19-22).

But the fact is that Christ didn't predict anything. The stories you are referring to here were written by some unknown author(s) long after the man who is called Christ died. And even much later after that were the stories said to have been written by some guy named "John".

So these stories hardly predicted anything. It's easy to write stories where the character in your story predicts what you plan on writing next.

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
It's commonly assumed that because people in hell are there permanently
and never get out; then they must have eternal life. But such is not the
case.

According to John 3:36, John 5:24. John 6:47, and 1John 5:13; eternal life
is bestowed only upon believers; viz: Christ's sheep (John 10:25-28)

In other words: people in hell aren't there with eternal life; no, they're there
with human life; which is unfortunate because people stuck with human life
are stuck with human nature: and in an environment like hell; it's not a
good thing to be "only human".

Same goes for immortality. when the dead are raised to face justice at the
Great White Throne event depicted at Rev 20:10-15, they won't be
immortal. The proof of that is when they are sentenced to die in the lake of
brimstone. Were they immortal, their bodies would be impervious to fire.

Incidentally, though the resurrected bodies of the dead will be terminated in
brimstone, they won't go to waste; but instead their remains will be
preserved as perpetual nourishment for a curious species of fire-proof worm.

†. Isa 66:22-24 . . From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to
another, all mankind will come and bow down before me: says the Lord. And
they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against
me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be
loathsome to all mankind.

A worm that thrives in brimstone is pretty amazing, but not totally
unreasonable. The 4-inch Pompeii worm lives in sea water temperatures of
176° F --hot enough to destroy salmonella and sanitize an egg. So I guess if
God could create a worm like the Pompeii, it shouldn't be too difficult for Him
to create worms that like it even warmer.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]

[Divine Insight]

A worm that thrives in brimstone is pretty amazing, but not totally
unreasonable. The 4-inch Pompeii worm lives in sea water temperatures of
176° F --hot enough to destroy salmonella and sanitize an egg. So I guess if
God could create a worm like the Pompeii, it shouldn't be too difficult for Him
to create worms that like it even warmer.

I think we can all be confident that the God of the Bible is not only capable of creating disgusting hideous things but it even fits right in with this character.

Isn't this the same God that bragged to Job about having created a fire-breathing dragon that no man could tame? That sounds pretty sadistic right there.

I personally didn't care much for the Biblical story. The God character didn't seem very nice to me. He seemed too much like all the other villains in the story. There wasn't really anything to latch onto in that saga. The Christian sequel with the New Testament that you keep quoting from did seem to try to twist things around for the better. But IMHO, it was too little to late. And their turn-around ended up being as gory as the previous version anyway with the crucifixion. I guess there's just no way to salvage a bad story.

[WebersHome]

[font=Georgia]-
†. Gen 2:7-9 . .The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and
there He placed the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the
Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good
for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil.

The Hebrew word for "midst" doesn't eo ipso indicate the garden's geometric
center. It can also mean among. In other words: the two species could be
found all over the garden mingled with all the other trees.

†. Gen 2:16-17 . .The Lord God commanded the man, saying: From any tree
of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall
surely die.

A basic survival skill we were taught in the Army was how to distinguish
edible plants from vegetation unsuitable for human consumption because
toxic plants are everywhere; so the presence of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil wasn't unusual.

The tree of life produced some pretty amazing fruit that contained nutrients
so essential to good health that when they're eliminated from one's diet:
they eventually pass away.

†. Gen 3:22 . .The Lord God said: Behold, the man has become like one of
us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take
also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever-- therefore the Lord God
sent him out from the garden of Eden

The word "forever" in this case doesn't indicate true immortality, it just
means indefinitely; viz: as long as the man supplemented his diet with fruit
from the tree of life, he wouldn't die of natural causes. In other words: one
dose of the tree's fruit wasn't enough to keep him going. No, he had to eat
the fruit on a regular basis, in point of fact; I'm guessing on a daily basis;
sort of like the minimum daily requirements of typical nutrients like fats,
proteins, carbohydrates, and vitamins and minerals.

Exactly how the chemistry of any one plant could be so rich in nourishment
as to stop the human body from getting old and falling apart is currently
unknown. A very active field of modern scientific research in our own time is
gerontology-- the study of the phenomena of the aging process. As yet,
gerontologists have no significant understanding of the aging process, and
therefore no clue as to what treatments, or nutrients might be employed to
stop it.

But my point is: Adam wasn't created with immortality. His life depended on
what he put in his tummy. True immortality is independent of diet. In other
words: it is impossible to kill a truly immortal person with malnutrition.

Q: Why didn't Adam drop dead when he tasted the forbidden fruit?

A: Adam wasn't told he would drop dead the instant he tasted the fruit. The
Lord God's exact words were "in the day that you eat from it you shall surely
die."

The Hebrew word for "day" is ambiguous. It not only indicates calendar
days, but also entire epochs; for example the six days of creation. (Gen 2:4)

In other words: when Adam tasted the fruit, he inaugurated an era we can
safely label the day of death. Well; that day has been very, very long and it
isn't over yet.

†. Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered into the world, and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men

†. Rom 5:17 . . By the transgression of the one, death reigned through the
one

†. 1Cor 15:21 . . By a man came death

†. 1Cor 15:22 . . In Adam all die

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=[/font]