1. Intermediate stage (e.g., Paradise) immediately after death that isn't "heaven". 2. A corporeal resurrection of our bodies. 3. A plurality of "heavens" after the Resurrection. 4. The physical transformation of the earth and its unity to "heaven". 5. Christ's true followers will rule beneath God's dominion instead of just mindlessly sit on clouds and strum harps for all eternity.
Joe Smith in hell: “I want a re-trial!”
With all the douchebaggery coming out of the #1 in the C of E, why should we be impressed by #4? The salvation of the Church will come from the third world. Worrying too much about the forms and structure of the afterlife is an unhealthy obsession. Let’s just say it’s different, and chances are a mind must be transformed to grasp it.
The Bible doesn’t say much about what Heaven is like, in detail. My thought is that it’s not something we can understand, so there’s no point in explaining it to us. I’m counting on it being wonderful. See ya’ll there!
Nothing revolutionary here, IMO. Christian theology speaks of the final Resurrection and the reuniting of our soul with its own glorified body (such as Christ possessed following His resurrection). The righteous dead will not spend eternity as disembodied shades.
How this is held to be approaching the LDS concept of the afterlife, with its billions of gods and heavenly mothers and spirit children awaiting union with flesh yet to be conceived, is beyond me.
no Mormon Cosmology can’t be right because it neglects the source and goal of our existence, participation in the Inner Life of the Trinity.
I was with him right up to that “bombed civilians in Iraq” part.
The bishop had previously spoken for the literal interpretation of the Resurrection of our Saviour. I am a Bible-literalist. I believe (only reading from your summary) that, OF COURSE, the bishop is much closer to a biblical description than “sitting on soft clouds” and all that mystical stuff that came from paintings on Catholic Church ceilings, etc., etc., . . .
Bishop Wright would probably have quite a reaction to your comments!
Here we go again. Fasten your seat belts ladies and gentlemen.
II Cor . 5:6-8
6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Proverbs 14:8 NAS
The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way , But the foolishness of fools is deceit .
Despite what is written, you could cut to the chase about here as this is the fact that the elite of his colleagues in the Anglican/Episcopal communion accept: Check out what The Most Rev. John Shelby Sprong says!
Christianity has been limping along on tradition alone for centuries. It's about time it begins to return to it's biblical roots.
I always thought the traditional description of Heaven was kinda boring. Everyone has their own idea of paradise—so ultimately paradise would be each person living in that particular context (I think “Star Trek Generations” had this theme).
In the final analysis, however, I am very skeptical of ANY mortal who professes to know the answers about the afterlife. That is for G-d to know and the rest of us to find out when He’d ready to share it with us.
My philosophy: Do the best you can in this life and hope for the best.
Luke 23:39-44 -- "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. "
Well, I have read the Bible pretty thoroughly and I can vouch that every one of those doctrines is literally supported in the text.
Let’s see: #1 sounds like Purgatory to me and there is the text in Luke: “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” “Ameen soi lego, seemeron met emou esee en to paradeiso” The word ‘paradeiso’ in Greek is borrowed from the Persian, the original of which meant ‘enclosure’ or ‘Eden’ if you will. When our Lord meant ‘heaven’, He said ‘ouranous’. So even on the point of death He made a clear distinction. I think we ought to make one too, yes?
I have to ask whether you really want to argue with #2 given I Cor 15:35-49 and I Thess 4:16-17 as particular citations along with Luke 20:27-40 and 22:28-30, and also citing Rev 20:12-15. Given the Scripture testimony, there is no arguing we will be resurrected in physical bodies
As to #3, our Lord Himself said, ‘In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so I would have told you...’ John 14:2 “en tee oikia tou patros mou monai pollai eisin. ei de mee, eipon an umin oit poreouomai etoimasai topon umin?” That sounds like a multiplicity of ‘heavens’ if you will without violating the unity of God or the universality of Heaven. How is it not possible to have varieties of places in such a case?
#4 is also a commonplace. Rev 21:1 says “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.” “Kai eidon ouranon (not paradeiso, yes?) kainon kai geen kaineen. ho gar protos ouranos kai hee protee gee apeelthan, kai hee thalassa ouk estin eti.” So Dr. Wright seems on pretty firm ground on this opinion also.
And again in Revelations: 20:4 we find the prime text supporting #5: ‘Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed.’ “Kai eidon thronous, kai ekathisan ep autous, kai krima edothee autois” Further on, the text reads (v 6): ‘Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.’ “makarios kai agois ho echon meros en to anastasei tee protee. Epi touton ho deuteros thanatos ouk echei exousian, all’ esountai iereis tou theou kai tou Christou, kai basileusousin met autou [ta] chilia etee.”
Now, I grant that this takes place before the old heaven and earth are wiped away, but there will be a time when the faithful rule under the direct dominion of God.
The clearest Gospel testimony to #5 is at Matt 20:20-23: ‘Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came with her sons to make a request of him and bowed low; and he said to her, ‘What is it you want?’ She said to him, ‘Promise that these two sons of mine may sit one at your right hand and the other at your left in your kingdom.’ Jesus answered [and said] ‘You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink? [that is, can they endure death by martyrdom?] They replied, ‘We can.’ He said to them, ‘Very well’ you shall drink my cup, but as for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father.’
It looks to me like humans will be granted places of authority at some point in the future, though who will have which is not yet known.
Now, I only see that LDS cosmology does not falsify any of them. It has many other elements, most notably the pre-existence of souls (i.e., souls which were all created at the beginning of time and which are then sent into bodies as the children are conceived). If you see that element in Dr. Wright’s thought, then maybe you have something. Otherwise, you do not have a point here.
BTW, I happen to have read all three of Dr. Wright’s excellent books on the Son of God, beginning with the ‘New Testament and the People of God’, ‘Jesus and the Victory of God’ and the ‘Resurrection of the Son of God’. It is so very orthodox and Catholic that I am frankly surprised he even has a benefice in England, much less a senior bishopric. The man is thorough and he backs up his analysis with hard data. He does not cringe from the miraculous but recognizes that it is what mere humans experience when the Divine breaks in to work His will. I should not wish to think to vouch for anyone, but I will stand to defend a holy and faithful man working in extremely adverse circumstances when his work is not intelligently engaged.
I’d take the Mormons over the Anglicans. Joseph Smith was a gentlemen who married his women. Didn’t cut off their heads when he was tired of them, unlike the founder of the Anglicans.
This article is from Time. regardless of the source they used Time is an anti-Christian publication with an agenda.
The man with the last word on Mormon theology was Napoleon Bonaparte; try doing google searches on “Joseph smith” and “Rosetta stone”...