Christianity Corner - Resurrection

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, Jesus does not have a monopoly on being the son of God.

We are all God's sons though there is only one Son of God.

That what you meant monkspider?

And you are right about having to take care of ourselves here on earth, because look at the high opinion that Apostle Paul holds of our earthly bodies.

1 Corinthians 7:18-20

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that you body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have recieved from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honour God with your own body."

As for predestination, I do believe we get to make decisions, but that God already knows what decisions we will make before we do.

There are atheists in heaven I am sure...

Shi:

Is that your answer for salvation for those who have not heard scripture? I can see them believing in a God of some type, yet not be sure of the Christian God.

[Shi Huangdi]

Aaack! Giant Squid attack! Hows it going, I haven't see you in a while.

"But doesn't Jesus say in John 10:34:"

You're definitely well versed in scripture Squid, probably more so then I. I'll have to cheat and search up the Catholic interperation of this scripture here.

From the USCCB: "15 [34] This is a reference to the judges of Israel who,since they exercised the divine prerogative to judge (Deut 1:17), were called "gods"; cf Exodus 21:6, besides Psalm 82:6 from which the quotation comes."

"
And doesn't the Psalmist have God say in 82:6:"

Actually that is Asaph saying that. And he is refering to the Jewish people there anyway. Psalm 82 also makes mention of other Gods.

"
And just to add to the semi-Biblical wackiness, why do you assume Heaven and Hell to be necessarily after-death states? Didn't Jesus say "the Kingdom of God is within you?"

Don't you know it is the fundamentalists who pick out verses from the bible, take them literally, and fail to interpert them in light of the whole bible?

Jesus said his Kingdom is not of this world. Conversely, while this world may not be the nicest places, it's not quite suitable as something to be decribed with a metaphor of eternal fire. Also HEaven and Hell are described as being eternal, which this life clearly isn't.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If you really think that God molds our life and the events sorrounding it, I would ask you to check who the Bible calls the "Prince of This World"

Well, I guess we reach an impasse for the moment then, my friend.

If you think about it, it would be impossible for there not to be a Hell if there is free will. No love can be real if not freely given, and should we choose not to love God by following his teachings, God certainly will not force us to be with him should we choose the path of evil.

Interesting, interesting. So you say that hell must exist for the people who choose the path of evil, and it's an inevitable result of our free will. A very well-thought out theory Shi. But consider this, despite our free will, and despite the possibilty for us to stray from what we should really be doing, the hell that you refer is impossible because of God's love for us. It is a complete and unconditional love that loves us for who we are, warts and all. Surely, you would not throw your son out forever because he poured coffee on your keyboard even though he shouldn't have, would you? And God's love for us is even far greater than we can even comprehend. As I said last time, I would not want anyone to suffer in any sort of a hell, and God is much nicer than me.

You could say that perhaps someone "rejects" God in this life by following the path of evil, but it is only temporary, upon returning back home, he will remember everything about everything, and have to accept the shame of his mistakes in this life, learn from them, and try to do better next time. No one ever really wants to not be with God, even if they may be deluded into saying such a thing in this life, or if their actions are the opposite of what God would desire. It can at best be described a moment of temporary insanity.
Just think of it as getting a low grade on one of many, many tests, not an expulsion from school.

Only one, in fact. And hence only one son of God.

Well, I never said that Jesus wasn't special.

[Giant_Squid]

Quick question: I thought anyone who writes Psalms is a Psalmist? Who's this Asaph character? I don't know as much about the Bible as I like to pretend, I just have great reference sites

Don't you know it is the fundamentalists who pick out verses from the bible, take them literally, and fail to interpert them in light of the whole bible? Jesus said his Kingdom is not of this world. Conversely, while this world may not be the nicest places, it's not quite suitable as something to be decribed with a metaphor of eternal fire. Also Heaven and Hell are described as being eternal, which this life clearly isn't.

I don't believe that that sort of consideration is out of context. Lemme explain:

I think this world is quite suited to be described as a metaphor of eternal fire - in fact, the standard metaphor used, Gehenna, was if I remember correctly a very worldly valley near Jerusalem where the Hebrews had their little primitive 1st century garbage incinerators. But more topically, fire is THE metaphor for desire, as any third-rate poet who needs a quick double-rhyme has quickly figured out. If you're not religious, you may be BURNING with lust, or BURNING with greed, or BURNING with anger, or three thousand other types of burning. It's used this way in the Bible too every so often (Proverbs 30:6, for example) You admit Hell is not a literal lake of fire and that this describes souls burning with general sinfulness and such after death - why not before death too, when we KNOW such burning occurs?

Second thing Jesus says about Hell: it's where the "worm never dies". This definitely throws a wrench into your hypothesis - you don't really have worms after death, although I suppose if you did immortal worms would just come with the territory. But I think a more likely meaning is decay or greed. Worms are best known symbolically for being ravenous creatures that eat all kinds of stuff up, especially human corpses. I don't know if you're a sci-fi or horror person, but you get all KINDS of fun books with giant worms just eating everything in sight. That's Greed.

Jesus' ONLY other reference to Hell in the Bible calls it the "outer darkness" where there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I suppose you could say the souls are literally in darkness, although that seems to both contradict the bit about fire and to call up all sorts of angels-on-pins questions about how these souls are supposed to have optical apparati in the first place. But I think a better meaning of "darkness" is just not Seeing The Light.

These three elements seem to contradict themselves if taken too literally - fire tends not to be dark, and you don't tend to get worms in either of them. But compare them to what the Buddha (who definitely was NOT talking about a literal afterlife) called the Three...gah...it was the Three Somethings...I don't think it was sins, but it might have been...the three big problems with living on Earth when you aren't Enlightened or at least Buddhist, which are Anger, Greed, and Ignorance. You get a pretty good correspondence. Thus we have Hell, and why I don't think the conclusions from my quote are out of context at all. Now for Heaven.

First, the word is problematic...Jesus doesn't use Heaven, he uses the Kingdom of God. Heaven is term taken from all the religions at the time that thought God was up there in the literal sky and you'd go meet Him there after death. He uses "Kingdom of God", which is quite vague - I believe deliberately so - as to whether it's a place or what. Let's look at the quotes he uses:

He does say "My kingdom is not of this world." I am not implying that Jesus' kingdom IS this world, or a part of this world - perish the thought! His statement seems to me rather straightforward. Everyone was looking at him expecting him to say "Okay, let's kick out the Romans now, resurrect the state of Israel, and then that'll be the Kingdom of God". He was telling them that that was NOT what was going to happen. This wasn't going to be a standard worldly Kingdom where such and such a guy was king and it had such and such miles of territory. This was going to be Something Else. I think that to believe this is a normal kingdom, only in a different dimension or on Planet God out in space somewhere but definitely an actual physical place is also missing the mark. The Kingdom of God is not a place, it is a state of mind.

Let's continue..."Unless you become as little children, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) The Zen monks have a tradition that the little child is closest to enlightenment. State of mind. Doesn't make too much sense as standard Heaven, although you could spin it that way if you wanted by saying God only lets people who have become like children through the Pearly Gates, but it seems kinda pointless that God supports childishness. "Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3) Again, doesn't mesh well with your view - God has no reason to keep out a righteous pagan from Heaven, although said pagan would certainly not have been born again. John describes being born again as "being baptized with fire and spirit" - a spiritual awakening - which is exactly how modern day Christians (at least the ones I know of) use it. It is when you have a sudden flash of knowledge about the very real immanence of God (contrast to yogic dhyana if you're bored). It is, basically, an experience which changes your perception of God and the Universe. I would argue that being born again isn't an "entrance ticket" to Heaven, where God says "You were born again while you were alive, so you can enter the Pearly Gates" - rather, it IS entering Heaven - it is, when done right, the entrance to a state of mind where you have transcended worldly concerns and are close enough to God that you don't have to worry about Him anymore. And, as a clincher, Luke 9:23, Jesus says "I assure you that there are some here who will not die until they have seen the Kingdom of God". That's darned difficult if the Kingdom of God is a traditional Heaven you go to after death, but makes perfect sense if the Kingdom of God is, as is said earlier, within you. And even though you probably won't care I'm going to quote from Thomas anyway, because it's cool: "Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father.
But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty." and "Jesus said, The (Father's) kingdom is like a person who had a treasure hidden in his field but did not know it.". Comp. the Buddha's teaching that we are already enlightened but simply do not realize the fact.

Your last point, about the Kingdom of God being eternal, is the most difficult and the most interesting. This is probably too mystical to communicate well and I should follow the old "whereof one cannot speak thereof must one keep silent" dictum which the forum was nice enough to remind me of in its little quote, but here goes nothing. The word eternal is commonly used to mean "forever", but that is not the technical meaning - we already have a word meaning "forever", and that's "forever". The technical meaning of the word eternal is "timeless" or "beyond time". Sri Bhagavan, a Hindu yogi, teaches that "Abiding in the self there is no Space-Time." Dhyana, one of the higher steps of enlightenment in both Buddhism and Hinduism, is described by Crowley as "a union of the ego and the non-ego, and a loss of the sense of time and space and causality." Two Christians to whom I could refer you are William Blake, who wrote some great poetry about it, and Boethius, who defined eternity rather cryptically as "possession all at once of unlimited life”. I get the feeling it's the sort of thing you don't understand unless you've got it, and the sort of thing you don't get unless you've spent significantly more hours in a remote mountain cave in Tibet vibrating arcane syllables than I have, but the idea really does occur with surprising frequency in mystic traditions.

Wow, it feels good to get a good old Poly rant in again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who's this Asaph character?

The person's name at the top of the Psalm, that's all.

Asaph, according to my NIV was one of the leaders of David's choir.

[Shi Huangdi]

obiwan

Is that your answer for salvation for those who have not heard scripture? I can see them believing in a God of some type, yet not be sure of the Christian God.

John 10: 16-17

16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17

This passage is standard one used as evidence for people outside the Christian community being saved. Also refer to the Matthew passasge above, faith is not mentioned as what seperates the saved and damned but rather works. If an atheist lives his life following his conscience and loving his neighbor as himself, and repents in some way shape or form, he could be saved. Of course, an atheist believing there is nothing in the next world might have less reason to feel sorry for any serious evil he commits, which could it make it harder for atheists to obtain salvation. Yes, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and nobody comes to the father except through him, but in the Catholic tradition people who did not know Christ are presumed to be given some sort of chance to do so after death.

Monkspider

But consider this, despite our free will, and despite the possibilty for us to stray from what we should really be doing, the hell that you refer is impossible because of God's love for us. It is a complete and unconditional love that loves us for who we are, warts and all. Surely, you would not throw your son out forever because he poured coffee on your keyboard even though he shouldn't have, would you? And God's love for us is even far greater than we can even comprehend. As I said last time, I would not want anyone to suffer in any sort of a hell, and God is much nicer than me.

Of course God doesn't want anybody to go to Hell, he wants all of us to be united with him. That's why he gives us infinite forgiveness so we can always repent of our sins no matter how bad.

You make an analogy of throwing your son out forever. But that isn't the right way to think of it. If someone you loved completely and utterly made a conscious decision to reject you and didn't want anything to do with you, you wouldn't come to them with a shotgun and lock them in your house would you? If so, I hope your girlfriend gets out of town quickly if she ever decides to leave you. It is because God loves us that he gives us a choice, that those who don't want to be with him and prefer the darkness to the light will have a place to go and be away from God.

As far as your temporary hell thing, that is pretty close to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. If you can accept that some souls can totally reject, perhaps you could try checking the Catholic Church out? Liberation Theology was originally a movement in the Catholic Church if I'm not mistaken.

Giant Squid

Quick question: I thought anyone who writes Psalms is a Psalmist? Who's this Asaph character? I don't know as much about the Bible as I like to pretend, I just have great reference sites "[/qupte]

Please don't do this. With reference sites pointing to you particular passages- well you can "prove" anything from the bible that way. Again, it is the fundamentalists who pick out passage from the bible without taking it in the light of the whole book.

Now, I am not perfect in my biblical knowledge, so sometimes I will look for passages on certain topics. When I do this however, I am usually sure to read the chapter of the bible the verse is in if it's not too long, or at least enough to gain a sense of the context of verse. Also, it helps to get some commentary on it from a knowledgable source(such as www.gospelcom.net or www.usccb.org) to hear a view on it and see if there another part of scripture that complements the verse.

As Obiwan Mentioned, that Psalm was just the writing of a man named Asaph making a Psalm to praise God, it should not be taken literally.

I think this world is quite suited to be described as a metaphor of eternal fire - in fact, the standard metaphor used, Gehenna, was if I remember correctly a very worldly valley near Jerusalem where the Hebrews had their little primitive 1st century garbage incinerators. But more topically, fire is THE metaphor for desire, as any third-rate poet who needs a quick double-rhyme has quickly figured out. If you're not religious, you may be BURNING with lust, or BURNING with greed, or BURNING with anger, or three thousand other types of burning. It's used this way in the Bible too every so often (Proverbs 30:6, for example) You admit Hell is not a literal lake of fire and that this describes souls burning with general sinfulness and such after death - why not before death too, when we KNOW such burning occurs?

Fire can be a metaphor for the desire. It can be a metaphor for alot of things. It could be a cleansing fire(Catholics associate this with Purgatory)

1 Corinthian 3: 12-15

"If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

Fire is also associated with the Holy Spirit, as it came to apostles at Pentecost. Fire can also be as a punishing fire, or a fire of hatred. The last two are best used to describe Hell.

Now, you say you know such Burning occurs. But the problem is that burning occurs even in Christians. Even in the most devout Christian sin "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God". Heaven is a place of full, complete, and eternal bliss, and complete union with God. That isn't attinable on Earth, and hence Jesus' kingdom not of this world. the Prince of This World. While in this world we aren't fully with God, obviously, Satan cannot include Heaven in his principality.

Second thing Jesus says about Hell: it's where the "worm never dies". This definitely throws a wrench into your hypothesis - you don't really have worms after death, although I suppose if you did immortal worms would just come with the territory. But I think a more likely meaning is decay or greed. Worms are best known symbolically for being ravenous creatures that eat all kinds of stuff up, especially human corpses. I don't know if you're a sci-fi or horror person, but you get all KINDS of fun books with giant worms just eating everything in sight. That's Greed."

Ok, but Hell is supposed to be a bad place. Greed could be very efficent in bringing you worldly pleasures, so if all their was was this life, Greed might not be such a bad thing. Of course the worm in this is metaphorical, but it is likely here taking to mean anguish. The pain in hell is the pain of loss- knowing you have chosen to alienate yourself from God. That is what the worm here should be taken to mean.

Jesus' ONLY other reference to Hell in the Bible calls it the "outer darkness" where there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth. I suppose you could say the souls are literally in darkness, although that seems to both contradict the bit about fire and to call up all sorts of angels-on-pins questions about how these souls are supposed to have optical apparati in the first place. But I think a better meaning of "darkness" is just not Seeing The Light."

Again, the fire here is metaphorical. The outer darkness from Hell means the eternal seperation from the light of heaven.

Keep in mind another word is used for hell, eternal punishment.

First, the word is problematic...Jesus doesn't use Heaven, he uses the Kingdom of God. Heaven is term taken from all the religions at the time that thought God was up there in the literal sky and you'd go meet Him there after death. He uses "Kingdom of God", which is quite vague - I believe deliberately so - as to whether it's a place or what. Let's look at the quotes he uses:

He also uses "eternal life" which is somewhat contradictory to an idea of being a state of mind you can achieve.

And Heaven IS used in the bible:

Luke 24:50-53

50When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

Jesus using the word Heaven:

Matthew 6:1

"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven

Jesus using the word Heaven and making it a distinct place from Earth:

Matthew 6:8-14

Matthew 6
8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.Forrgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

Hell is also used by Jesus, and as a place specifically mentioned as after death.

Luke 12:4-5

4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

[qupte]Let's continue..."Unless you become as little children, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3) The Zen monks have a tradition that the little child is closest to enlightenment. State of mind. [/quote]

State of Guilt. Little Children are also innocent before they reach the age of reason. Sin is not allowed in heaven, you must be forgiven of your sins in order to enter into it.

"Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God" (John 3:3) Again, doesn't mesh well with your view - God has no reason to keep out a righteous pagan from Heaven, although said pagan would certainly not have been born again.

Born again can be taken as being born to God, as opposed to natural birth which is done in original sin. This being born again can either happen in this life through baptism the accpetance of God, or in the next life.

Jesus says "I assure you that there are some here who will not die until they have seen the Kingdom of God". That's darned difficult if the Kingdom of God is a traditional Heaven you go to after death,

And yet it happens, beginning in the verse immediatly after it, when the disciples are given a vision of heaven:

Luke 9:28-36

28About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.)
34While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him." 36When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one at that time what they had seen.

Now do you see the danger of reading verses in isolation?

And even though you probably won't care I'm going to quote from Thomas anyway, because it's cool:

How about the part in Thomas where Jesus is alleged to say we should hate our parents? The Gospel of Thomas is not considered an accurate account, and it is known to have been influenced by Gnosticism.

The word eternal is commonly used to mean "forever", but that is not the technical meaning - we already have a word meaning "forever", and that's "forever".

Webster defines eternal as being of infinite duration. The Bible we have is a translation of the original. Google helps find this translation:

The word aionios . . . means either without beginning or without end or both. It comes as near to the idea of eternal as the Greek can put it in one word. It is a difficult idea to put into language. Sometimes we have 'ages of ages' (aiones ton aionon).
{Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 1, p. 202 (under Matt 25:46) }

I encourage you to further study the bible, I believe a comprehensive study of it will undoutably show an afterlife that is without end.

[Shi Huangdi]

bump for people i have been discussing with

[Giant_Squid]

As Obiwan Mentioned, that Psalm was just the writing of a man named Asaph making a Psalm to praise God, it should not

be taken literally.

I may be wrong on this, but isn't everything in the Bible divinely inspired, so that I can't say "Well, that Gospel was just

Luke writing down some stuff" - theoretically it was supposed to be God writing through Asaph or Luke, and therefore

infallible.

Now, you say you know such Burning occurs. But the problem is that burning occurs even in Christians. Even in the most

devout Christian sin "For all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God".

I don't mean to offend anyone in this, but Jesus himself did say that there would be a whole lot of people who thought they

were Christians and very few actual Christians. I am having a lot of trouble finding the passage, but I remember Jesus saying

during one of his more impressive miracles that anyone who has faith can do every miracle he's done and more. Since we don't

get this going on very often, the conclusion is that Jesus is expecting a lot from us, and that it's not every single

churchgoer who fits Jesus' ideal of the kind of person who enters the Kingdom. I believe there are those - some of the

saints, perhaps, who have managed to break free of this sort of thing, and that anyone who follows Christianity well escapes

it to a certain degree. Compare to Buddhism, where the stated end of the religion is to end earthly suffering by becoming

enlightened, but it is only at most a few hundred people every generation who are able to do this. Or, as Matthew said,

"small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Heaven is a place of full, complete, and eternal bliss, and complete union with God. That isn't attinable on Earth,

and hence Jesus' kingdom not of this world. the Prince of This World. While in this world we aren't fully with God,

obviously, Satan cannot include Heaven in his principality.

Why do you think that's not attainable on Earth? If you want an interesting Catholic philosopher (one who the Pope told to

stop philosophizing because he was being a heretic, but Catholic nonetheless) I suggest Teilhard de Chardin, and if you don't

mind religion, any eastern philosopher whatsoever. Or, to take a coupla quotes from the Bible about "union with God" - "God

is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1 John 4:16) and...gah...there was another I wanted

I can't find...I'll look some more later.

Ok, but Hell is supposed to be a bad place. Greed could be very efficent in bringing you worldly pleasures, so if all

their was was this life, Greed might not be such a bad thing. Of course the worm in this is metaphorical, but it is likely

here taking to mean anguish. The pain in hell is the pain of loss- knowing you have chosen to alienate yourself from God.

That is what the worm here should be taken to mean.

I disagree. I think that a major point all religions like to make is that greed just doesn't work. Yes, you may end up

getting lots of money and sex and whatever else you wanted (if you're lucky) but it just makes you want more. Think of the

richest and "luckiest" people in today's society and consider how many of them have committed suicide or overdosed on drugs

or are constantly remarrying and divorcing and who just in general are wrecks. I think that what Jesus is trying to say is

that IF you are greedy, this ravenous worm is never going to die; it's just going to get bigger and bigger until you're

And Heaven IS used in the bible:

My mistake. But I don't think (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Jesus says you *go* to Heaven. The references you gave

seem to list it at a description of where God is, mainly taken from the description of where God is in the Old Testament,

which doesn't mention afterlife much at all.

Hell is also used by Jesus, and as a place specifically mentioned as after death. "I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

I'm going to "cheat" on this one, and refer you to Matthew 10:28, where Jesus says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." I think we can agree this is the two evangelists referring to the same saying of Jesus - but Matthew records no mention of that hell is after death (and he says you still have your body in Hell, which is certainly intriguing). The cheating is that I'm going to say Matt caught the saying right and Luke caught it wrong. It could be the other way around, but this way agrees with my theory

State of Guilt. Little Children are also innocent before they reach the age of reason. Sin is not allowed in heaven, you must be forgiven of your sins in order to enter into it.

I refer you to Elisha and the children who he arranged to have eaten by bears. The rest of the Bible doesn't seem very big on the sinlessness of children - in fact, I always believed the point of original sin was that you had sin no matter how young you were.

Born again can be taken as being born to God, as opposed to natural birth which is done in original sin. This being born again can either happen in this life through baptism the accpetance of God, or in the next life.

Okay, we mostly agree on that one then, although I don't get your comment about next life seeing as how if it's the next life it's already too late.

28About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, "Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." (He did not know what he was saying.) 34While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35A voice came from the cloud, saying, "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him." 36When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves, and told no one at that time what they had seen.

This doesn't sound to me like they're in Heaven...it sounds like they hear the voice of God on a mountaintop.

How about the part in Thomas where Jesus is alleged to say we should hate our parents? The Gospel of Thomas is not considered an accurate account, and it is known to have been influenced by Gnosticism.

Actually, you may be surprised to know that the part about how we should hate our parents is shared completely with Thomas by an "orthodox" Gospel. "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple". That's Luke. Scholarship's opinion with the Gospel of Thomas is pretty pathetic - all of the people who are orthodox Catholic or Protestants believe that Thomas is less valid than the others, all the people who are "rebels" and revisionists believe Thomas is MORE valid than the others, and the unbiased people are pretty split with a good number saying it's as valid as the originals. We know Thomas exists from at the latest 130 AD, since we have a parchment from then. However, a lot of scholars date it earlier than that, with some going so far to say it's the earliest Gospel of all. It has a fascinating bit of overlap with the orthodox Gospels in that it contains a lot of the same sayings they do but also some new sayings, which gives it the look of something made by actually listening to Jesus and recording, although it could also be a clever fake by someone who wanted to give that impression. But there is a consensus among a lot of Bible scholars that the earliest Christian documents were just "saying lists" of Jesus, of which Thomas could be one, and it has a sort of primitive simplicity to it. We know that the Gnostics had sprung up quite well by the time of Paul, meaning that one, they might have a basis in what Jesus actually said, and two, there ought to be very early Gnostic documents. But in my opinion, saying it's "known to have been influenced by Gnosticism" is a circular argument and a silly one. It's as if I tried to dismiss John by saying "it's known to have been influenced by orthodoxy". Yes, it definitely agrees with Gnosticism, but that's what you'd expect if Gnosticism was a legitimate religious tradition that was founded on this Gospel in the same sense that we believe orthodoxy to be a legitimate religious tradition founded by the four standard gospels.

Finally, I bring up two new points. One, Jesus' use of tenses. He always mentions that someone who believes in him etc. HAS eternal life, not that they're going to be given eternal life. I suppose you could claim that this is a matter of continuity, but that certainly looks like weird grammar from my point of view (including my point of view as a somewhat-less-than-mediocre student of ancient Greek) And second is that Jesus uses a LOT the metaphor of death for spiritual death and life for spiritual life. Witness


"Whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me...has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24)
"If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

"Life" after "death" can take on an interesting new meaning in that context.

[Ben Kenobi]

If an atheist lives his life following his conscience and loving his neighbor as himself, and repents in some way shape or form, he could be saved.

"When an unbeliever upholds the law, he is a law unto himself."

This can only fly for people who do not hear the Gospel. Everyone who hears the Gospel has to make the decision of whether they will follow the word of God or not.

I think that 'atheists' is a bad way to term these people. Non-believers might be a better one.

Giant squid:

Not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally, there are many passages best understood to be symbolic.

[Jon Miller]

I agree basically

but jsut because some pwerosn shouted to an atheist at the street corner does not mean that they have had a real chance to here the gospel and accept it or reject it

hearing the gospel means understanding a part of it and having the Holy Spirit work on you, than rejecting it (and many people do this often)

it is not something that we can judge

I would like to reply to other parts (for one Giant Squid, if you beleive that God takes ian active interest in his church and in the Bible than it woudl make a lot mroe since to treat the 'Orthodox' part of the bible as more correct, also there are a whole lot more people and groups who agree with the orthodox ideas than the gnostic ideas, hence your claim that the gnostic books are equally relevant is faulty)

Jon Miller

[Shi Huangdi]

Giant Squid

I may be wrong on this, but isn't everything in the Bible divinely inspired, so that I can't say "Well, that Gospel was just

Luke writing down some stuff" - theoretically it was supposed to be God writing through Asaph or Luke, and therefore infallible

Absolutely not, I think you have spent too much time debating Michael Jeszenka. Divine inspiration does not mean it is God speaking, or that it is infalllible. Only the fundamentalists, who are a minority in Christianity, believe that.

I don't mean to offend anyone in this, but Jesus himself did say that there would be a whole lot of people who thought they

were Christians and very few actual Christians. I am having a lot of trouble finding the passage, but I remember Jesus saying

during one of his more impressive miracles that anyone who has faith can do every miracle he's done and more.

I am not familiar with that, but are you familiar with the parable of the rich man and the eye of the needle?

Matthew 19:24-26

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Here we see clear proof it is not nessecary to be perfect, or to be in some enlightened state in order to be saved. Were we try soley on our own selves to reach Heaven we would surely fail. Everybody would in fact surely fail, all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. But by the power of God, all things are possible, and perfection is not required for salvation. Thus this shows that even those who "burn" with greed or any of our passions can still be saved in the end by God.

"small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Correct. Very few can reach Heaven just from what we do here on Earth. The good majority of us will need to spend a little time in purgatory first. (If you were wondering about Scriptural support for that doctine, check Malachi WRT to their being prayers for the dead. Now, if they were already in heaven or hell, then they have reached the eternal no change destination and there would be no point to it. Of course, if there was no afterlife as you suggest, there would be even less point to it.

Why do you think that's not attainable on Earth?

See the quoted scripture. Satan can't include heaven in his principality.

"God

is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."

Heaven is perfect union with God. Nobody can perfectly dwelleth in love on this Earth, humans are imperfect and we all get tripped up by Lucifer once in a while.

getting lots of money and sex and whatever else you wanted (if you're lucky) but it just makes you want more. Think of the

richest and "luckiest" people in today's society and consider how many of them have committed suicide or overdosed on drugs

There are famous cases, but there are plenty of rich and powerful people who don't end up being the subject of those types of problems.

[quote]that IF you are greedy, this ravenous worm is never going to die; [/qupte]

But on Earth it will! If you are correct in there being no eternal Hell where some go after they die, then at least even the greediest will have the peace of the grave, and that worm will die.

But I don't think (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Jesus says you *go* to Heaven

Without going on a hunt for more passages, note that it says Jesus ascended up into heaven, showing that is a place you can go, and a place distinct from Earth.

Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." I think we can agree this is the two evangelists referring to the same saying of Jesus - but Matthew records no mention of that hell is after death (and he says you still have your body in Hell, which is certainly intriguing)

After the general judgement, the one at the end of the world, humans are to be reunited with their bodies. (This is the ressurection of the dead Jon Miller questioned us about). Now, keep in mind, if there is no afterlife, why wouldn't we fear those who can destroy the body, since that would mean your end?

The cheating is that I'm going to say Matt caught the saying right and Luke caught it wrong. It could be the other way around, but this way agrees with my theory

Your theory is made questionable by one of the passages and is contradicted by the other. The traditional Christian theory fits both passages.

I refer you to Elisha and the children who he arranged to have eaten by bears. The rest of the Bible doesn't seem very big on the sinlessness of children - in fact, I always believed the point of original sin was that you had sin no matter how young you were.

The passage:

2 King 2:23-25

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD . Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria

Youths here is likely the difference between teenagers and little kids. As for original sin, they have that, but God is alot less likely to hold us accountable for Original Sin seeing as how we didn't actually commit it, hence it has been the consistant mainstream Christian teaching that unbaptized babies do not go to hell. (Limbo was a onetime supposed explanation for this, but it was never official dogma). In any case having original sin is alot different then making a free choice to sin.

although I don't get your comment about next life seeing as how if it's the next life it's already too late.

MAtthew 12:32

32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

We see here some sins will be forgiven, others in the age to come.

This doesn't sound to me like they're in Heaven...it sounds like they hear the voice of God on a mountaintop.

They are not in heaven, rather they are seeing a vision of it.

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple". That's Luke.

Where!? I can't find it.

In any case, I can't say that the Gospel of Thomas is a subject I have studied. I do know however the Early Church placed a great deal of time, tudy, and prayer into making the bible, and I would think that being closer to the time when the events were still fresh they were in a lot better position to judge then we were. A google search here will give you a nice modern summary of problems with the GoT:

http://answers.org/bible/gospelofthomas.html

"He always mentions that someone who believes in him etc. HAS eternal life, not that they're going to be given eternal life"

This isn't a problem. They are alive right now, and will continue to be alive through all time. Hence they have eternal life. Now I may be mistaken but Jesus never says anyone HAS eternal death, OTOH, as obviously they are presently alive but will eventually will not.

obiwan

"When an unbeliever upholds the law, he is a law unto himself."

Chapter and Verse?

This can only fly for people who do not hear the Gospel. Everyone who hears the Gospel has to make the decision of whether they will follow the word of God or not.

Jon Miller makes a good point here. How much of the gospel is it nessecary to hear? What if your exposure to the bible is seeing Fred Phelps (of www.godhatesfags.com) picketing a funeral with signs saying "God hates America" "Thank God for September 11th" and then some bible passage from Leviticus condemning homosexuality? Where does the line lie?

God won't fault us for an imperfect intellect, nor will he expect the impossible. There are some who love the truth and in strong studying of it simply come to the wrong conclusion, it just that these be punished? The unbeliever will be unable to be guided by that passage as he doesn't believe in the Bible.

Now that shouldn't mean everyone is free to choose whether they believe in God. If they leave religion for a bad reason, such as social pressure or feigned ignorace due to not wanting to follow a teaching, then they are of course guilty of the sin of apostasy and will face damnation unless they repent.

And of course it is probably less likely the atheist will go to heaven, because as I said the atheist has less motive to repent for any major wrongdoings he comitts. But remember through God all things are possible.

[Ben Kenobi]

Shi, and Giant Squid.

I'm not happy about Shi's answers to you, so I'll address both of you in this post.

Correct. Very few can reach Heaven just from what we do here on Earth. The good majority of us will need to spend a little time in purgatory first. (If you were wondering about Scriptural support for that doctine, check Malachi WRT to their being prayers for the dead.

Please, don't go that way. Please. Otherwise I have to rebut prayers for the dead. You don't want me to do so.

There is a much better way to interpret the passage. Few rich people will reach the Kingdom of Heaven because of their sins. They are rich, so why do they need God when they have everything they need on Earth?

That is why the rich man will have a hard time reaching heaven. Nothing to do with Purgatory, etc. in this passage, but everything with lack of trust in God. Poor people rely on God for many things that the rich person supplies for himself.

"Luke writing down some stuff" - theoretically it was supposed to be God writing through Asaph or Luke, and therefore infallible"

I don't like Shi's answer to your question because it focuses on division and not on the truth. Yes there are some who interpret passages more literally than others. For example, Shi will interpret the body and blood of Christ during communion as eating and drinking the literal body and blood of Christ.

Does this make you a fundamentalist, Shi?

A better answer is that God wrote scripture through people and that God's words are transcribed in Scripture in the style of the different authors. This explains why two different Christians can express the same idea in different ways, yet both come from the same Holy Spirit.

Even if we believe that the Bible is God's word, that leaves the problem of interpretation, in our own understanding of what God is trying to teach. This can be inappropriately done, causing many problems, yet it does not cast doubt on the validity of scripture, but only on human understanding.

Matthew 12:32

quote:
32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.


We see here some sins will be forgiven, others in the age to come.

NO!

Shi, what the passage says is that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Please read a little more carefully.

during one of his more impressive miracles that anyone who has faith can do every miracle he's done and more.

You allude to Matthew 17:19

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Shi, here is the passage in Luke that Giant Squid also alludes, that you could not find.

Luke 14:25-27

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.


Now, onto your direct questions, Shi.

[Ben Kenobi]

Shi:

Chapter and Verse?

None other than your one stop shop for doctrine, in Romans.

Romans 2:14

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,)

This is why God can judge even those who do not have scripture. They will be judged against their peers who do live according to their conscience, available to all men.

Jon Miller makes a good point here. How much of the gospel is it necessary to hear?

John 3:16. Of course, the person should also be able to look the passage up in the bible and to understand the passage as God has written.

What if your exposure to the bible is seeing Fred Phelps (of www.godhatesfags.com) picketing a funeral with signs saying "God hates America" "Thank God for September 11th" and then some bible passage from Leviticus condemning homosexuality? Where does the line lie?

Okay. If you just heard Leviticus, would you know that Jesus is the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world? No. That should clarify my statement.

God won't fault us for an imperfect intellect, nor will he expect the impossible. There are some who love the truth and in strong studying of it simply come to the wrong conclusion, it just that these be punished?

People who are not receptive to the Gospels will not be saved regardless of the 'extenuating' circumstances. Those who read the bible will come across passages such as John 3:16. Any competent church will encourage the new attendee to read the bible with someone to help them with any questions.

In fact, I would doubt that anyone could come to Christ without some previous experience with Scripture. I had a chance to study with a good Christian friend of mine before I became a Christian, yet I did not accept Christ until my life fell apart and I needed help. There were some stumbling blocks that kept me from recognising Christ as Lord, namely my own pride even though I had read the Gospels.

Sorry to be so harsh in the post above, but as you see I want people to get the best, so that they are not mislead about Christ and what he teaches. I expect the same if you disagree with me.

"A cord of three strands is not easily broken."

[Giant_Squid]

EDIT: - Obi, I posted this just before your latest post, which I haven't yet read but see is somewhat addressed to me. The thing addressed to you is for a comment WAY above. I'll respond to your latest post tomorrow or sometime. Sorry 'bout that.

Obiwan: Indeed. It seems everyone trying to interpret the Bible says "Everything supporting my position should be taken literally, everything supporting your position is a parable or metaphor." I definitely admit to doing this myself sometimes, but I think the job of someone attempting interpretation is to try and figure out which is which. And it's interesting, because as your understanding of what the Bible is discussing changes, your interpretation may change. For example, I'll bet the ancient Israelites interpreted the Creation very literally because it sounded like as good a Creation story as any, but most Christians I know today, even extremely literalist ones, tend to view that now as at least partially metaphor (ie how many days are there in one "day" of God?). Right now my understanding of Life, the Universe, and Everything is at a point where I tend to interpret Jesus' words the way I interpret them now, which I think, albeit biasedly, is at least reasonably consistant and somewhat clear throughout the text. I certainly respect your interpretation, and I guess if Shi or others hit me with enough stuff I could switch around my conceptions of what's literal and what's figurative, but that doesn't seem to be the way I'm thinking right now.

Jon Miller: That seems to be a dangerous way to determine the truth. For example, right now according to some statistics there are more practicing Muslims in the world than practicing Christians, and every year the numbers get more skewed in their favor (to be fair, that is highly speculative and there are still more nominal Christians than nominal Muslims, but everyone agrees the Muslims are growing faster). That would seem to be an extremely good argument in favor of Islam if your theory about God's will is true. It would also mean that Catholicism is superior to Protestantism, although for all I know you're a Catholic and you'll smile and say "Yup!"

Shi:

Absolutely not, I think you have spent too much time debating Michael Jeszenka. Divine inspiration does not mean it is God speaking, or that it is infalllible. Only the fundamentalists, who are a minority in Christianity, believe that.

I *wish* it were only Michael Jeszenka. Yeah, I do have a lot of friends who are pretty fundamentalist Christians and it is from them that I got that impression. Tell me then, what do you believe about the Bible? If it isn't infallible, isn't it too easy to just dismiss anything you don't like as seeped-in writer bias?

I am not familiar with that

Okay. In a minor miracle of my own I managed to locate the miracle passage, John 14:12, and the one about many people who think they're Christian not being Christian is Matthew 7:21-27

Here we see clear proof it is not nessecary to be perfect, or to be in some enlightened state in order to be saved. Were we try soley on our own selves to reach Heaven we would surely fail. Everybody would in fact surely fail, all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. But by the power of God, all things are possible, and perfection is not required for salvation. Thus this shows that even those who "burn" with greed or any of our passions can still be saved in the end by God.

I am not saying God is not involved here. I suppose my analogy would be the doctrine of salvation by works rather than salvation by grace. In SBW, you have to do certain stuff before God saves you. I believe something similar, except that the stuff you have to do is within your own soul. Our solar power plants depend completely on the sun for their power and cannot get a spark without it, but even though the sun may be out and waiting, you're not going to get anything if you don't set up a proper receptor array. To continue this awful analogy I'm already ashamed of, God is the sun, salvation is the energy, and you are the guy who has to build the power array correctly. Obviously I still have a way to go before I catch up to Jesus on the parable-writing ability. (edit - or I could have just used Jesus' parable of the talents - you get the talent from the master, but it's your job to use that talent in the best way possible)

See the quoted scripture. Satan can't include heaven in his principality.

I don't believe he does. If Satan is temptation and lust and evil and sin, all those things are absent from the Kingdom of God. People who have attained this Kingdom are quite literally out of his control.

Heaven is perfect union with God. Nobody can perfectly dwelleth in love on this Earth, humans are imperfect and we all get tripped up by Lucifer once in a while.

Yes, that is the standard Christian view. I agree with you that you can't dwelleth in love just by trying to be a nice person and going to Church every so often, but I do think there are ways - ways that Jesus was teaching in the 4 orthodox scriptures and ways he taught very plainly in Thomas. Also, I'll throw some comparative religion in here - it's a very common theme for a religion to teach the majority of people to just be generally nice people and for a select few to attempt complete union with God. If you've heard of the Cathars, a heretical Christian sect brutally stamped out in the...I'm going to say 13th century, but I might be off - the name Cathar comes from the Cathari, which means "perfected ones" - they taught that the highest goal for their priests was to completely perfect one's self and achieve this highest union, and they did a darned good job - if you want to read about how calmly and politely they suffered being tortured, killed, and having their entire religion snuffed out, it's pretty impressive.

There are famous cases, but there are plenty of rich and powerful people who don't end up being the subject of those types of problems.

That's certainly true, but I think it's hard to say they're any happier than the average mass of people (I confess that that last statement has the property of being completely untestable in any way) You probably would agree, however, that they are less spiritually attuned - most of the great saints and prophets and holy men I can think of have been hermits and quite often beggars.
Let me ask you a question also - if you are right about Heaven, why is Jesus so extremely concerned with riches, and why would he be so adamant about keeping rich people out of Heaven? Jesus never says not to be a rich person who became rich by lying and swindling, he just says not to be a rich person. He never says don't be a rich person who doesn't give his money away to charity - he says not to be a rich person. He says you cannot serve God and Mammon - period - whether you earn your riches honestly and whether you give to UNICEF every day. What would you say his problem is?

Without going on a hunt for more passages, note that it says Jesus ascended up into heaven, showing that is a place you can go, and a place distinct from Earth.

I thought I admitted in the last post that the Bible uses Heaven to mean "sky", but I still think that the "Kingdom of God" in the sense of the afterlife is separate from Heaven in the sense of sky. By someone going to Heaven I didn't mean someone going up into the sky, I meant Jesus mentioning someone going to the afterlife. Which brings me to another point. Where exactly do you think Heaven in the sense of the afterlife is? Scientists can now see to the end of the Universe and have never found it. This passage implies that Heaven as the Bible uses it is up - in the sky - but the only scientifically feasible explanation is that you can't get there from here except by the traditional route of dying. Jesus didn't dimensional-jump to Heaven - he ascended to it. Since we know Heaven-Afterlife isn't in the sky, I think this is a good support for that the use of Heaven in the Bible is just "the sky" in a traditional sense.

After the general judgement, the one at the end of the world, humans are to be reunited with their bodies. (This is the ressurection of the dead Jon Miller questioned us about). Now, keep in mind, if there is no afterlife, why wouldn't we fear those who can destroy the body, since that would mean your end?

You still have your bodies in Heaven and Hell? Do you have to eat and stuff? What happens in Hell after they burn your body up and such? I'm not really familiar with this doctrine, so enlighen me.
As for why we shouldn't fear those who can destroy the body, my answer is a Zen parable, which is kind of cheating but realize that the point I'm trying to make is that "the Kingdom of Heaven" in Christianity is equivalent to enlightenment in Buddhism. The parable is: "A general once decided to raze a certain monastery. All the monks fled except one old master, who continued meditating. The general entered the monastery and was enraged. He came up to the master, brandished his sword, and said "Do you understand that you are looking at a person who does not have the least bit of hesitation at the thought of killing?" The master responded "Do you realize that you are looking at a person who does not have the least bit of hesitation at the thought of dying?" At this point the general realized he was enlightened and left the old man alone." And while we're on the subject, because I can't resist - "A samurai came to the old master and said "What are Heaven and Hell?" The master said "You call yourself a samurai?! Barging in and asking such stupid questions of a Zen master? You should be ashamed of yourself!" The samurai grew enraged and drew his sword to kill the master, and just then the master said "There is Hell". The samurai's eyes widened, and he bowed. The master said "There is Heaven"." I admit that was a pointless story, but it does explain where I get my philosophies from

Youths here is likely the difference between teenagers and little kids. As for original sin, they have that, but God is alot less likely to hold us accountable for Original Sin seeing as how we didn't actually commit it, hence it has been the consistant mainstream Christian teaching that unbaptized babies do not go to hell. (Limbo was a onetime supposed explanation for this, but it was never official dogma). In any case having original sin is alot different then making a free choice to sin.

Could you refresh me on your beliefs on original sin then? I'm afraid if I try to discuss this now I'm going to go Jeszenka on you.

They are not in heaven, rather they are seeing a vision of it.

Ooh, good catch. I was stuck in my interpretation of "seeing" the Kingdom of God as actually being in it, but I guess that's not necessary.

Hating your father and mother is in Luke 14:26

The early Church selecting the four Gospels they did doesn't impress me precisely because the early CATHOLIC Church is the Church that believed those four Gospels. The early GNOSTICs included the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gnostics were around as early as the Catholics were. The fact that the Catholics survived to become a massive world-bestriding colossus and the Gnostics are mainly snuffed out except for a few crazy people with badly made websites seems to me more an accident of history than a tribute to their having picked more accurate gospels. The Catholics decided what Gospels to include based on whether they agreed with theirt teachings.
I'm not impressed with your Gospel of Thomas site - its position seems to be that everything that disagrees with Catholicism proves it's fake because it means the Gnostics went and invented it, and everything that agrees with Catholicism proves it's fake because they copied it from the Catholics, which doesn't leave room for very much that could possibly prove it true.

A few extra quotes for you to think about:

"But man dies and is laid away; indeed he breathes his last and where is he? 11 As water disappears from the sea, and a river becomes parched and dries up, 12 So man lies down and does not rise. Till the heavens are no more, they will not awake nor be roused from their sleep. 13 Oh, that You would hide me in the grave, that You would conceal me until Your wrath is past, that You would appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14 If a man dies, shall he live again?" - From Job 14

"“For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him? (3:19-22).” "

"4 Anyone who is among the living has hope--even a live dog is better off than a dead lion! 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten" - From Ecclesiastes 9

[Rogan Josh]

I am curious as to what you mean by 'ressurection of the body'. Clearly you could not be ressurected exactly as you are because you would not be perfect (no-one with my nose could be deemed perfect!). But at what stage do you cease to be yourself?

If you lose a hand, you are clearly still yourself. If you lose your legs, likewise. So what is so sacred about your body? In my view, resurrection is rebirth of what makes me me - my soul. And in that sense, my soul is my body, because it is the only part of me which is distinct - the only part of me which is actually me.

To answer your second question, anyone who is a Christian because they want eternal life, is in fact not a Christian. Eternal life/resurrection is a consequence of Christianity - not a reason. It is in accepting Christ's sacrifice for us that we become Christians, and it is the resulting love of God which makes us not want to commit sins. Being with God forever is a consequence of that. One does not become a Christian in order to live forever. If the result of Christianity was eternal damnation, I would still be a Christian.