Talk:Eternal life (Christianity)

"... In Christian teachings, eternal life is not an inherent part of human existence".

This is confusing to me. It is exactly the opposite of what my parents (very devout Catholics) taught me. They said that we will all live for ever after we die, that no matter what we do, that's what will happen, we have no control over that. However, depending on our behaviour here "on Earth", we (as in our souls) will live ["forever"] either in Heaven or Hell. That is the choice we make by our actions in this life.

Is this no longer the current viewpoint? Have I misunderstood something? Old_Wombat (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no "current viewpoint", scholars disagree, not surprisingly so. You may want to study the sources for the article, the discussion before posting the article on the Main page, and if you find something truly missing, add it. But please, provide sources (!) and don't delete without a discussion what others supplied! (Someone tried to make his point of view the "current viewpoint" and is now blocked, s.a.), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are multiple perspectives, and given that the biblical basis is not extensive various denominations have various perspectives. And in general, living in Hell is not considered eternal life, e.g. also see Eternal sin which creates a one way street, and should probably be mentioned here. I will add it to see also anyway. History2007 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There's eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. No wikipedia article yet though on eternal damnation. 75.15.195.70 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, with Eternal sin as one of the avenues that gets there. But after this experience, the blocked user, sockpuppets and all, I will sure not even try to start that article. Please feel free to start that if you like. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel totally under-qualified to edit this main page. I came looking for answers, ie, answers from others more qualified than I. But to get back to the topic, the two answers above have given me the info that I want. Thanx to everyone. Old_Wombat (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But this issue is not a simple topic by any measure, and scholars do differ on it. All that a Wiki-page can do is give a summary of the multiple scholarly presentations, without endorsing any specific perspective. My guess is that theologians will debate this up to the day before eternity, and will sell plenty of books along the way. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a wikilink to Oblivion (eternal), though the article as it exists now is somewhat lacking. And Eternal oblivion currently redirects there. 75.0.9.211 (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Oblivion is a suitable title for that article... History2007 (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Eternal life starts now

Collapse thread in line with WP:TALKNO as it was started by user now indefblocked.

Rudolph Bultmann interprets John 12:31 in this manner "the turn of the ages results now. No future in this world's history can bring anything new, and all apocalyptic pictures of the future are empty dreams". Now is the judgment of this world, now the prince of this world shall be thrown out and |I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to myself (John 12:31). Beasley Murray interprets John 2:36 in this manner "This phenomenon characterizes the time of the Church as an eschatological hour, wherein the realities of the end are perpetually present." " Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whoever disobeys the Son wilkl not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him". The already but not yet must be maintained in the article. In Christianity, Eternal life starts from now. Thank you IP from Malta. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC) HI user:History2007. No problem. With my edit, I have incorporated both the eschatos and the now. 'an eschatological hour' wherein the 'realities of the end are perpetually present'. Also, I've directly taken that quote from a WP:secondary source. 193.188.46.54 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC) So this is Alan again? History2007 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Hi this is Alan. If traditionally Eternal life refers to life after death , the tradition is wrong and we need to change it. Jesus healed the people because he wanted to give them life now not later. When he raised Lazarus from the death, Martha came to Jesus with an end-time resurrection theory "I know he will rise again in the last day", Jesus replied by razing him from the death NOW. He preached life now so Christianity is about life now. Martha replied, "I know that he will be raised up in the resurrection at the end of time." "You don't have to wait for the End. I am, right now, Resurrection and Life. The one who believes in me, even though he or she dies, will live. And everyone who lives believing in me does not ultimately die at all. Do you believe this?" (The message translation John 11:24-26) //www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 11&version=MSG)46.11.74.247 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC) So let me get this straight: you agree that "the tradition" in Christianity teaches "A". You think "A is wrong" and you think we should change that in Wikipedia to teach "B" that is different from "A"? History2007 (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC) It ALWAYS depends on what tradition you recognize ! You can look in so many different traditions, The Catholic Charismatic Renewal Tradition from were I come from is about life NOW. 46.11.74.247 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC) But that is just the view of one specific (and somewhat smaller) group. So your trying to correct the views of the mainstream via Wikipedia amounts to evangelizing via Wikipedia. Enough of this. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I recently attempted to move the page to Eternal life in Christianity based on this guideline from WP:TITLEFORMAT

Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: Even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as where summary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transportation in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transportation" or "Azerbaijan (transportation)" – use Transportation in Azerbaijan.

(Bold in the original.)

Can anyone provide a reason this is incorrect? Editor2020 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I used parentheses because Wikipedia:Disambiguation states that is the basic form, e.g. Inflation (economics). There may later be Eternal life (Islam) etc. History2007 (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse my sudden lightening involvement with this issue Editor2020, and User:History2007 . Isn't Eternal life in Christianity a better way of expressing Eternal life (Christianity), based on the idea that Eternal life in Christianity is a logical concept while Eternal life (Christianity) is not ? So that if we have Eternal life in Islam it would be another logical concept etc. Eternal life in Christianity is after all a concept, an idea, a theory, a message etc. At least is still redirects. The issue regarding the correct name still stands however... What do you think again user:History2007 ? Alan347 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IP edits to lede

IP 69.91.87.215 is editing the lede with less than logical content and sources, e.g. attempts to define "general Christian belief" then adds a source from the Vatican website on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Someone should explain to this fellow that the Catholic Catechism is not recognized by Protestants, etc... And the IP has breached WP:LEDE by adding material not in the article body, and exceeded the 4 parag limit etc. I do not want to edit war him, although he is on the 3RR line and I am not, but these edits are unconstructive. Will leave a message again. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I included a Protestant source as well, obviously. You're the one who wants to edit the article to not conform to basic Christian belief, Protestant or Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, your edits do not fly because they involve WP:Synthesis and are against WP:LEDE as well. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You have also breached WP:AGF now by claiming an intention my part to distort content. There you go... History2007 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you think citing the Catholic Church, an prominent Anglican Bishop and the early church's belief in what eternal life means represents original research? The opening sentence you had in the article in no way represents the Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Historic Christian belief in any way whatsoever. THAT'S original research. The article is Eternal Life (Christianity) not Eternal Life (History2007's personal take). -69.91.87.215 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The lede was modified by other editors, not just myself and was sourced to WP:RS sources. You need to read WP:V and WP:OR as well. If you make a "theological cocktail" of the Catechism and NT Wright by yourself, that is WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm that other guy. Look, I find it very strange that someone would think this isn't standard Christian belief about eternal life. I'm a bit confused as to what exactly you're opposing here. Is it belief in the resurrection of the body as a general Christian belief? Do you really not believe that is a standard, basic historic Christian belief? The Catholic Church officially teaches the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. I provided a source - their own catechism from the Vatican's own website. The debate is over and settled as far as Catholicism goes. Now onto to Protestantism. N.T. Wright isn't representing a particularly novel belief here in his belief in the resurrection of the body. If you want, I can add Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology as a source - his book is, of course, highly influential in Evangelical circles. I can add Calvin's Institutes as a source. I can add sources from Arminians and Calvinists who both believe in the resurrection of the body. I can add sources from dispensationalists. I can add a million sources. The fact is, your original sentence had no sources at all. I provided sources and I can provide more if you want. The fact that this page wasn't in harmony with the rest of the pages on Christian eschatology should tell you something was wrong over here - i.e. original research which doesn't represent what the vast majority of Christians of every tradition believe. I even provided sources from the early church, in the form of the Apostle's Creed. Your opposition here is frankly just bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.87.215 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki articles on eschatology are generally hopeless. Read this please, and look at the date. This used to be the only sane article among them all, and please read this talk page above. This is a nightmare topic, with everyone and his brother having the final word on eternity... History2007 (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the highly experienced User:StAnselm knows more about this topic than myself, as I had said above. My suggestion, if you agree, is to let him be the WP:3O and fix it as he wants. That might be the best way. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Honestly, I don't know why we're still having a dispute, though. The idea that eternal life in Christianity is "a spiritual kind of immortality rather than an immortality of the physical body" is completely at odds, as I've shown, with Catholic and most Protestant belief; it's completely at odds with the historic doctrine of the resurrection of the body. As I've said, I can provide more sources from the likes of Calvin, Aquinas, Luther, important creeds that are Catholic and Protestant alike, etc. But if you're still disputing that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is original research and not something that the vast majority of Christianity in all traditions since the earliest times of the church has believed, then, sure, let StAnselm decide. 69.91.87.215 (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not disputing resurrection, in fact I was defending resurrection in the earlier versions several months ago if you look back. I did have problem with sourcing and the Second Coming items. Anyway, I will leave him a message, and if he wants to do it, leave it in his hands. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not enthused about fixing things up, but I'll try to help. "Spiritual kind of immortality" was probably not a good phrase to use. One of the problems we have here is the difference between official Christian theology and what most Christians believe - Wright has been reacting against the Christian hope expressed as "going to heaven when you die", and has been emphasizing the resurrection of the body. This has obviously been a core doctrine among all Christians everywhere, but perhaps Wright is correct in saying most Christians don't think very much about it. The lead is far too long, but it needs to have (a) something about the second coming and resurrection, (b) something about the intermediate state and going to heaven when you die (though not all Christians believe this), and (c) something about the "eternal life starts now" theme, found especially in John's gospel. Perhaps the Leith/Carson paragraph can be moved into "overview". StAnselm (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You know more about it. So please just rewrite the lede as you see fit and I will support it. The lede is way, way too long now. The best way would be to be brief and use the "official" (whatever that may be) form rather than the person on the street view. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Category Theology

Please note that the categorization goes as follows, from immediate category to great-grandparent: Afterlife in Christianity -> Christian eschatology -> Christian cosmology -> Christian theology.

This article has been classified both in Afterlife in Christianity and in Christian theology.

Let's please not have all articles that are in (great)(grand)child categories of Christian theology also classified in Christian theology directly, because if we would do that the amount of articles in Christian theology would run into the thousands and nobody would benefit from that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)