What about the rapture?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

Not reincarnation, but resurrection to a “spiritual body,” which you’ve struggled mightily to explain elsewhere.

Right! A physical (as in bodily) resurrection to a spiritual body rather than a physical (as in natural) body. Where the physical/natural body made of the stuff of the Earth is perishable and weak because it is subject to the laws of nature from which its existence derived, so a meteor from the sky and poof it is nothing but hot gasses. While the spiritual body made of the stuff of Heaven is imperishable and powerful because it is not subject to the laws of nature (not a part of the mathematical space-time relationships of the physical universe), so a meteor from the sky has no impact on it whatsoever. But the implication of this is that interaction with the things of the Earth while conceivable, is extremely difficult and far from the natural course of events. The miracle of the resurrection was not the fact that Jesus had a spiritual body, for He always had spiritual life and never lost it. The real miracle was that the disciples could see and interact with Him. For Jesus to stick around even for the short time He was there, was not a natural thing at all.

So your suggestion that we would all live on the Earth with spiritual bodies doesn’t really make any sense, in more ways than one. The limitations of the laws of nature exist for a reason just like the walls of womb in which a fetus grows. Blow those limitations away and it no longer serve its proper purpose.

@Jay313

Also, I’m not sure how you fit the following ideas together:
…
If the resurrection changes what is wrong with mankind, and if that is the only thing wrong with the earth or the known universe, then the physical universe still serves its good purpose in the consummation.

In other words, physical death is not a result of the fall but a natural part of life and not something we should expect to change, except in our perception to being seen as a second birth into the greater life of the spirit.

@Jay313

As well, the melding of spiritual and physical existence in the resurrection body introduces the “new” aspect, which as yet we can only guess at.

I don’t believe in any such melding. Either you abide by the laws of nature and it is physical, or you do not abide by the laws of nature and it is spiritual. There is no in-between.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@heddle

Because when Christ does return to end history-- some believers will be alive and not in the ground. They will, at least for this meaning of the word, be raptured.

Unless of course we go extinct before then - then we’ll all be in the ground

[Sealkin (Quinn)]

@mitchellmckain

1 Thessalonians 4: 15 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, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; 17 then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

While many hold different views of that Paul is saying in this (and I personally go for the pre-tribulation rapture dispensational premillennial concept of the end times but I’m not a huge times table nut job or really Christian Zionist) regardless of how we try to understand it Paul is simply telling the Christians of Thessalonica that the dead will precede the living and this was told to them because many were afraid that Christian loved ones who had died before them will get left behind when the Blessed Hope took place. This is the main issue in which Paul is saying.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

Where the physical/natural body made of the stuff of the Earth is perishable and weak because it is subject to the laws of nature …

Of course, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50).

@mitchellmckain

But the implication of this is that interaction with the things of the Earth while conceivable, is extremely difficult and far from the natural course of events. The miracle of the resurrection was not the fact that Jesus had a spiritual body, for He always had spiritual life and never lost it. The real miracle was that the disciples could see and interact with Him. For Jesus to stick around even for the short time He was there, was not a natural thing at all.

Interaction between the spiritual and the physical is not just conceivable, it is required. God is spirit. If we say that the spiritual cannot interact with the physical, then we shut God out of the physical universe and make it impossible for him even to be the Creator, since that it is the ultimate example of Spirit interacting with matter. The only example of a resurrected, spiritual body is Jesus, and since the disciples did see and interact with him, even sharing several meals with him, we can conclude that the spiritual body, though not subject to the laws of nature, is capable of interacting with the physical world. Beyond that, I’m not sure how much more can be said.

@mitchellmckain

The limitations of the laws of nature exist for a reason just like the walls of womb in which a fetus grows. Blow those limitations away and it no longer serve its proper purpose.

I think we are talking past one another a little bit here. I am assuming that the physical universe, the earth, and animal/plant life will continue to exist in the “renewal of all things.” The limitations of the laws of nature will no longer apply to resurrected humanity, but they will still be in operation for the rest of the universe.

@mitchellmckain

I don’t believe in any such melding. Either you abide by the laws of nature and it is physical, or you do not abide by the laws of nature and it is spiritual. There is no in-between.

Yes, “melding” was not the best choice of words.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

Interaction between the spiritual and the physical is not just conceivable, it is required.

The possibility is required for theism as opposed to Deism, yes. But it is quite apparent that interactions are far from easy or frequent. We do not have spiritual beings running around all the time in plain sight and the vast majority of things happen by the operation of natural law. Nor is the dualism conception of a spirit operating bodies like puppets supported by the scientific evidence. Quantum physics leaves causality open for such interaction but is a very small window – this is not much of an obstacle for an omniscient God, but your suggestion that people come back and live on the Earth in spiritual bodies is a different matter. That is not only unbelievable but like I said it would disrupt the very purpose of the physical world.

@Jay313

The only example of a resurrected, spiritual body is Jesus, and since the disciples did see and interact with him, even sharing several meals with him, we can conclude that the spiritual body, though not subject to the laws of nature, is capable of interacting with the physical world. Beyond that, I’m not sure how much more can be said.

Exactly! The only example is when the spiritual body in question happened to be God Himself. It only demonstrates that this interaction is possible not that it is normal, natural, or to be expected.

@Jay313

I think we are talking past one another a little bit here. I am assuming that the physical universe, the earth, and animal/plant life will continue to exist in the “renewal of all things.”

I assume that the physical universe will continue to exist, because I assume that its function as a womb for the conception and growth of the spirit of new children will continue.

@Jay313

The limitations of the laws of nature will no longer apply to resurrected humanity, but they will still be in operation for the rest of the universe.

Correct. Resurrected humanity will no longer be a part of the mathematical space-time structure which is the physical universe, that is what it means to be spiritual. The structure and limitations of natural law are no longer needed by them or a part of what they are.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

But it is quite apparent that interactions are far from easy or frequent.

True. But I always appreciated Pascal’s approach to this question:

If there never had been any appearance of God, this eternal deprivation would have been equivocal, and might have as well corresponded with the absence of all divinity, as with the unworthiness of men to know Him; but His occasional, though not continual, appearances remove the ambiguity, If He appeared once, He exists always; and thus we cannot but conclude both that there is a God, and that men are unworthy of Him.

@mitchellmckain

Nor is the dualism conception of a spirit operating bodies like puppets supported by the scientific evidence.

I don’t agree with dualism. Humans are a complex unity. Referring you to Middleton again, but he substantially describes my view in his blog post:

Paul on the “Soul”—Not What You Might Think

Here are the opening paragraphs, for those who don’t want to read the article:

"Many Christians throughout history have thought that the “soul” was an immaterial part of the person, and of more importance than the body. Moreover, the “soul” has often been regarded as the immortal or eternal part of the person.

"We have now come to understand that this view of the “soul” ultimately goes back to Plato. In Plato’s anthropological dualism, the human person is constituted by body (partaking of mortality, change, and impermanence) and soul (the higher, eternal part of the person; in some sense, the true person). Plato understood soul ( psyche ) as essentially mind and regarded it as divine (he called it “the god within”).

"Plato’s anthropological dualism (the split in the human person) corresponded to his broader ontological dualism (the split in the nature of reality). He thought that the finite, changeable realm of physical existence, along with sense perception and bodily desires, was manifestly inferior to the divine, immaterial realm of rational intelligibility (the “Forms” or “Ideas”), which existed eternally and without change.

"In contrast to the Platonic view is the Old Testament vision of a good creation; God made the cosmos (including materiality) and pronounced it “very good” (Gen 1:31).

“Likewise, the Old Testament understanding of nephesh (the Hebrew word typically translated “soul”) is very different from Plato’s idea of the soul. It’s core meaning is simply organic life (the semantic range of the term includes other uses, but this is basic). This core meaning shows up in Genesis 2:7, where God creates the first man to be a “living soul” (that is, a living organism).”

@mitchellmckain

That is not only unbelievable but like I said it would disrupt the very purpose of the physical world.

Not really. What is the purpose of the physical world? No offense, but you always come across as absolutely certain about some things that are questionable, and that you, yourself, might change your opinion about if more information came available. I suggest holding your opinions with just a shred more humility. This is just a discussion, nothing more.

@mitchellmckain

It only demonstrates that this interaction is possible not that it is normal, natural, or to be expected.

That statement is only based upon your present experience of the world. The “world to come” undoubtedly exceeds our imaginations, as Isaiah said, “See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind” (Is. 65:17). Paul said essentially the same in Eph. 3:20-21: " Now to Him who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us, to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen."

@mitchellmckain

because I assume that its function as a womb for the conception and growth of the spirit of new children will continue.

Possibly, but that’s just speculation, so let’s recognize it as such, not state it as if it were dogma.

[David_J]

You have nothing to worry about, it’s all imaginary.

It’s not like it’s Blondie’s Rapture of 1980.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Jay313

What is the purpose of the physical world?

Are you actually interested in this question?

For what possible reason would God create this space-time structure governed by mathematical equations?

You may choose to view any attempt to answer this question as mere speculation which is just another one of the old “it is a mystery” answers of religion which some people think is pious and humble but which other people are sick of because it sounds more like excuses and a cop-out.

But I think the purpose of any created thing can be found logically in the nature of the thing which is created.

But ok… if you think this is a wide open question with many possible answers then let’s hear some of these possible answer and if you don’t see anything wrong with them maybe I can explain what I see.

[Jay313 (Jay Johnson)]

@mitchellmckain

Are you actually interested in this question?

Not really, because the purpose of the physical world is not found in the physical world, but outside it (in the spiritual). As Wittgenstein noted: "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value – and if there were, it would be of no value. If there is value which is of value, it must lie outside of all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental. It must lie outside the world.”

@mitchellmckain

For what possible reason would God create this space-time structure governed by mathematical equations?

Hmmm. I would say God governs the universe, not mathematics. Math is simply the language that describes the way things work. Math, by itself, has no power to cause (or govern) anything.

@mitchellmckain

You may choose to view any attempt to answer this question as mere speculation which is just another one of the old “it is a mystery” answers of religion which some people think is pious and humble but which other people are sick of because it sounds more like excuses and a cop-out.

No, I just believe in recognizing the limits of our knowledge. When it comes to God, the only way to know his purposes for certain is if he should reveal them to us. We can infer his intentions, just as I can infer your intentions from your words and actions, but such inferences are far from certain. (If I can incorrectly guess your reason for doing something, it’s even more certain that I can incorrectly guess God’s reason.) As far as I’m concerned, speculating about the things of God is a worthwhile endeavor, but only as long as we don’t confuse our extra-biblical conclusions for the absolute truth.

@mitchellmckain

I think the purpose of any created thing can be found logically in the nature of the thing which is created.

You have a lot more faith in your powers of deduction that I have in mine.

@mitchellmckain

let’s hear some of these possible answer

Well, you could start with Jonathan Edwards’ “Dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World.” It’s readily available on the internet and pretty good, although I’m sure you’ll disagree with his conclusion. (It has to do with God’s glory, of course.)

For myself, Jesus Christ is both the logos and the telos of God’s creative purpose.