Just some thoughts I have been playing with, since DMT a spiritual body after death seemed obvious to me, even though it was against orthodox belief. Reading through scripture and some other sources I have found it to be contrary to popular belief.

Christian belief for the most part holds to the notion that we have earthly bodies in heaven, that God will restore our flesh. Theologians use Philippians 3:21 Christ ‘will change the fashion of our humiliated body so as to resemble his glorious body’ and John 3:2, ‘we know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him’. Referring to Jesus ascending to heaven in a physical body. I find this irrelevant as if we had no heavenly bodies Jesus would have simply disappeared and Christians would not have the ascension, an integral part of doctrine.

1 Corinthians however reads very different.
‘35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[a]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[b] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” ’

Clearly stating a different ‘body’ than our earthly body, in response to this, the argument is that the body is more than it is here on earth, still being physical. I find the response weak.
Existence is purely ego-centric any notion of a true self is subjective, therefore I propose that in interpreting the bible we have done so impressing our own experience upon it. A spiritual body is so foreign to our life, it is reasonable to assume a physical body in heaven, even though scripture clearly states the opposite in some places.

Thoughts on the matter would be appreciated

p.s other verses support my argument, 1 Cor. is just very clear and lengthy on the matter.

As someone who is avowedly NOT a Christian, I can't really comment on the theological merit of this post, but I just want to say that I'm pretty happy to see psychedelic interpretations of Christianity here on The Nexus. There's a lot of folks here who try and mush psychedelics and Buddhism or Hinduism together, and it's refreshing people taking a different tack.

I don't know if this adds to the discussion at all, but I've often felt that, while under the influence of psilocybin that "this is how Adam and Eve must have felt before the Fall," and that the highest points of ego death/Union must be what early mystics were describing when they speak of the reward of the Beatific Vision in Heaven (which has a lot more in common with Nirvana than modern, American interpretations of Heaven).

Blessings
~ND

Hey,

According to Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, or at least how I understand it, resurrected bodies will be qualitatively different from our current physical bodies. According to Luke 20:34-38, Jesus tells us three things about the resurrected bodies:

1.

Here, on earth, all human beings are born and give birth through sexual reproduction. Mating is a necessity because of our mortality, it's our only way to procreate/survive. However, after resurrection, people won't be doing that. There will be no need for marriage because death won't exist anymore.

2.

The resurrected people will be called "God's children" and "like the angels" because their new birth won't have anything to do with physicality and sexual intercourse. God will resurrect humans in a purely divine/spiritual way.

3.

Even though Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were physically dead by the time Moses had a conversation with God, they are not completely perished. Their souls are awaiting resurrection of their new, immortal, spiritual bodies.

Greetings!

No I am totally in agreement with you, the idea 'oneness' in eastern philosophy fits very well with my universalism. I to see heaven as something very different from pop culture, and have been reading up on Hindi and Buddhist literature as a result. Also thank you ND, I am glad you found my post refreshing..



Thank you AstraLex, was hoping you might chip in. Yes, that is how I have been reading it, that they are specifically different 'bodies', I am suggesting purely spiritual ones, which some people already propose. I am finding it maybe more so in the protestant line, to be met with some resistance, when it seems very plausible if not logical that this is the case.

OP, interesting thread. I'll preface by relating many accept ALL scripture, religious story and myth as metaphor/allegory for entheogen cataylyzed experiencing. See, egodeath.com, dense but rich.

In short all Religion MAY be viewed as "describing" the universal experience(potential) had during deeply entheogenic, plant induced non-ordinary states of consciousness: no separate self(egodeath), no free will(metaphysical), block universe(frozen space/time) determinism. One needs to suspend any sense of hitoricity re religious scripture while searching for the message contained therein.

Whether the mental construct developed with this approach describes"Truth", is secondary and rationally unknowable anyway. What is fascinating is how much evidence supports this approach and how accurately it describes the the humanly universal, "mystic ecstasy". With a bit of study, it can add sacred dimensionality to your mystic state experiencing AND ordinary state life(more importantly)!! Check it out, report back in 6-12months.

As an aside, I'll allow these intense states may be had without entheogens, however with exponentially LESS reliability, practicality and ergonomicity.

Peace

Surely any physical body is nothing more than a localised subset of a physical universe?

So unless 'Heaven' can be located somewhere within that universe, the chances of retaining a physical form there are somewhat slim...unless, the whole 'resurrection' thread in the Bible is a coded hymn to transcendence/rejection of physical forms, attachments etc?

And as someone brought up in a viciously Christian environment, I'm not sure I share Nathaniel's excitement...

I think part of the reason for the appeal of eg. Hindu & Buddhist approaches is the fact that they can be said to be ethically superior to the Abrahamaic faiths in many respects, placing an emphasis on non-violence as opposed to sacrifice and sin etc.

The sheer notion of 'original sin' is deeply odious, an affront to human dignity, and the source of much evil in the world, and should be rejected by anybody aspiring to any kind of enlightenment themselves, IMO.

Just my 2c.

Your statement sounds biased, I think you will find abuses by those of all faiths, the Christianity you most likely grew up with, most academic Christians would distance greatly from.

I'm sorry friend, but I don't understand your point on original sin? What original sin is, is an axiom of basic human condition, it is that we are by nature imperfect. How this stops enlightenment I'm unsure, Buddha believed in sin.. 'These evil deeds were only done by you, not by your parents, friends, or relatives; and you yourself will reap the painful results.' (Dhammapada 165)

All faiths teach love and respect, some have simply been bastardised more than others.

It's one thing to commit sins oneself, as one grows and develops, but it is another thing entirely to ascribe sin to a blameless newborn. That's my problem with your line of reasoning. It's that line of reasoning which enables priests to justify their abuse of children, because their victims are 'already' fallen/sinners/wicked/worthless/sub-human... All the while venerating an image of another tortured human being. This is not healthy.

You are assuming you know my beliefs, because of your own subjective, Christian experience. It is that we are by nature sinful, that is the problem of evil. I disagree strongly with your claims about blaming an unborn child, and I am a somewhat practicing Christian. I think whats been happining within the Catholic church is abhoring, if the 'Christians', you get your data from believe that that justifies itself, they are ill informed and wrong!

Your usage of Matthew 7:16, seems grossly out of context... Again, it sounds you have based what 'Christianity' is around some very shoddy and I would claim false theology.

p.s This topic is way off OP.

I'm not assuming anything about your beliefs, despite the reverse apparently being acceptable.

The definition of 'original sin' is fairly fluid over time, but is generally held to be innate to all humans, from conception, an inheritance of Adam and Eve's fall, crystallised by the 'sinful' act of sexual reproduction which gives rise to the child in question. We are indeed potentially sinful by nature, as well as joyful, mindful, thoughtful and hopeful. Which of these qualities predominates over time, is a result of nurture, nature and circumstance, but it has nothing to do with the fact that my parents made love to bring me into existence, much less what some made-up people never did a long, long time ago. So, pre-judging everybody as sinful is as ridiculous as declaring everyone as enlightened. On the other hand, I can accept that we are all imperfect, because imperfection =/= sin.

I've got many things from Christians of all stripes over the years, but 'data' has never been amongst them, sadly. But I remain eternally hopeful...

And who took it off topic? I addressed your OP in the first two sentences of my first reply, but you declined to respond to that, possibly having spotted juicier fruit...

And since you claim to respect the Dhammapada so much, let's start at the very beginning:

But you are being assuming, Yes, some poor person you met told you sex is wrong, it is laughable how wrong you are in your assumptions. This is backyard Christianity you have encountered, I am sorry you never meet any real Christian thinkers..

A lot of Christians believe that the story in Genesis you are referring to is only there to show we are sinful by nature, nothing more, I mean that there were only two people! No, possibly the first people God had a relationship with?

It sounds like the Christians you have met believe in a literal creation story. If this is the case (which it sounds like), please don't tell me what I believe.

I'm happy for you that you've been lucky enough to find the only 'right' Christians on the planet.

Well done, now go in peace.

One, I never said my beliefs were right and two, I have found your comments to be quite ignorant and derailing to my OP.

And sorry, that I commented on your last words and not your first two sentences (which I found interesting BTW) but you made some blatant claims about Abrahamic religions being ethically inferior and one could not reach enlightenment following these. Sorry my friend but that is a broad brush to paint with.

I have a read a bit of the main article at egodeath.com as you suggested. I can assure you that nothing there has anything to do with the teaching of Eastern Orthodox Church. It is one big misinterpretation at best or a clever deception at worst.



I see where you are pointing at - there is one big section at egodeath.com full of articles "proving" that historical Jesus never existed. Well, it's a lie. Just look at wikipedia and see that there is a near universal consensus among scientists that historical Jesus did actually exist. Searching for "hidden messages", but denying historicity is a sure way to mislead people, which egodeath.com seems to do a lot.



Well, what is the goal of your personal spiritual development? To find a mental construct that looks good, or to actually find the truth? If it's the former, then any sweet lie will suffice. But if you actually want to know the truth, then egodeath.com will not satisfy your needs.



Correct! Look at the following passage from Revelation 21:1-5:



After resurrection, God will create a completely new universe - even the current Heaven will be destroyed.



The one does not contradict the other Resurrection means both the attainment of new universe and bodies and, simultaneously, the transcendence of our current physical reality and a complete rejection of our attachments: greed, pride, envy etc.

AL, to be deceived/misled implies a follower. My intention was not(never will be) to judge/evaluate/debate the relative truth/merits/historicity of ANY faith/scriptural based belief system.

This being a psychedelic/entheogen inspired forum, it seemed salient mentioning the merits of a trans-cultural/religious, non-ordinary state, mental construct model that can/may be very effective for interpreting mytho-religious messaging, hidden or otherwise.

Surely we can concur that, re-vivification of a particular fleshly corpse/egoic identity, same or re-made, in this or an alternate universe, is speculative.

The usefulness of the, egodeath/no seperate self, no free will, fixity of space-time, block universe deterministic, MENTAL MODEL for qualifying the generally universal sensibilities had during an entheogen(or otherwise) catalyzed intense "mystic state" session, is if anything, remarkable.

Dose this mental model describe a Ground of Being Truth? Quien sabe? I have however found it can be very helpful, personally and generally helping to integrate, what for many is the most "religiously" significant EXPERIENCE to be had.......pre-mortem.


Peace

First let me say that I am not a Christian per se but gravitate towards his teachings. In fact I don't disagree with a word he wrote, but some Christians will call my interpretations heretical.

With that out of the way, I can't disagree that this is the common interpretation: that somehow God will make us whole again in Heaven. As if to say, if you lost a leg on earth you'll get it back in Heaven.

This is a very narrow perspective that one might expect of ignorant and irreligious people. All talk of physical forms existing in the Kingdom of Heaven is wishful thinking by people who don't fully understand the words of the Christ.

But to give them the message of the Buddha, that they will transcend the flesh and realize the Kingdom of Heaven even while the material form rots and withers, is not the kind of "good news" that the people that Jesus taught were ready to hear.

I recently turned my attention to Luke 17:20-21 in which Christ made a bold statement. (There are translations issues with this verse, but I'll leave those aside for now.)


I am immediately reminded of Lao Tzu (et al), "It is here, right now." Heaven is not some happy city in the clouds where nobody suffers, it's within you — when? NOW! This is Eastern mysticism at its finest. If Heaven is within you, just think how divine and glorious you are! This is truly good news!

Jesus wanted to end our suffering, and gave us very clear advice on how to do it. But some part of us wants to know "What's going on? What's my reward? Where do I go when I die? What is heaven like? Is reincarnation real?" These are questions that stem from ignorance; they cannot be answered. Perhaps the best answer is "Fear not, just believe."

So, you are arguing here that is doesn't matter if a mental model is true in the absolute sense, as long as it "works"? I disagree wholeheartedly with this proposition. To me, a model must fit the reality 100%, otherwise I am not going to accept that model. The mental model proposed at egodeath.com does not fit the reality, and I can easily prove it - like the historicity of Jesus I mentioned in my previous post.

Lets take another example, from the physics this time, so you can see my point from a different angle. Lets assume you want to predict the stance of a planet, like Mars or Jupiter, in our solar system at any given time. There are two mental models (see picture below) you can utilize for this purpose: the heliocentric (all planets orbit around the sun) or the geocentric (all planets orbit around the earth).

Both models do an equally good job at predicting the stance of the planets at any given timepoint. So, according to your logic, it would make no difference which mental model we will use - they both work anyway. However, I am going to chose the heliocentric one because it does not only work, but also has a 100% fit with the reality.


Hey Glossolalia, I am glad you have posted the reference to Luke 17:20-21 and have connected it to Lao Tzu, because I too think that there are similarities between ancient Chinese wisdom and Christianity. However, there are a few point (based on Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition) I would like to add to your interpretation.


According to Eastern Orthodox teaching, kingdom of God is a state of mind, while paradise is a place. Only those who have reached the kingdom of God in their hearts here on earth are sure to live in the paradise for eternity. Of course, the paradise (New Jerusalem) and the hell (everything outside the New Jerusalem) will be created after the resurrection.

For now, the souls of people, who have reached the kingdom of God during their lifetime, stay in some happy place (not known where exactly, maybe in Heaven with the angels) and they have already guaranteed their place in New Jerusalem after resurrection. All other souls remain in Sheol. There are many rings (compartments) there, ranging from "no sorrow, but no joy either (peace)" to "a lot of suffering, caused by Satan and his demons". The final stay of all souls, who are now in Sheol, will be determined at the Judgement Day.


Divine? Not yet! In fact, divinization is our most important mission here on earth. This is the ultimate purpose of our earthly existence, everything else is secondary. It is possible to have a perfect union with God, which equals to reaching the kingdom of God in your heart. However, trying to reach the kingdom of God on your own is doomed to fail - it is granted by God as a gift and only if you make yourself worthy of receiving such grace. I will go as far as stating that those who have experienced enlightenment through meditation or entheogens, have never really reached the kingdom of God - they have seen only a faraway glimpse of it at best.

If you are interested, I can elaborate on the subject of divinization and explain why I believe Eastern Orthodox Christianity to be the only way to reach the kingdom of God. For now, it is sufficient to say that it is impossible without the help of God and without clearing yourself of passions (rage, lust, pride etc.) first.

AL, respectfully I would submit that we may be "talking past" each other. Respective ages might be a factor.

Our(human) access to reality/Reality is always provisional. Complementary epistemological systems of knowledge(scientific) and gnosis(experiential) are harnessed to glean a sense of our reality/Reality.

Fascinatingly, entheogens(a sacred gift?) allow average folks to participate in deeply gnostic experiencing that when shared, demonstrate an amazing degree of cross personal/temporal/cultural/religious mutuality.

Additionally, we now appreciate the quantum nature of the matter/energy realm(radically non-reductionistic) forcing us to merge knowledge and gnowledge in an attempt to gain Knowledge.

There exists a fundamental uncertainty, deeply embedded in the nature/Nature of "It". A sensibility that,the subject/object, us/God duality is a persistent delusion, often arises.

Peace