PLATONISM’S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY

Much attention in recent years has been devoted to the influence of Greek philosophy on Christian doctrine. This has been especially true in regard to the nature and attributes of God. Some have also contended that Christian eschatology has been negatively influenced by Greek Platonic assumptions and ideas. Randy Alcorn’s book, Heaven, for instance, asserts that biblical eschatology has been largely replaced by Christoplatonism which is a merger of Christianity and the ideas of Plato.1 According to Alcorn, common conceptions of heaven are often influenced more by Platonic ideas than they are the Bible. In an interview with Time, N. T. Wright blamed Platonic influence on Christianity for a distortion of the doctrine of Heaven. “Greek-speaking Christians influenced by Plato saw our cosmos as shabby and misshapen and full of lies, and the idea was not to make it right, but to escape it and leave behind our material bodies,” 2 says Wright. In this article we will summarize what Platonism is and survey the impact of Platonism on Christian eschatology. This paper will end with a summary of observations concerning how Christians should view the relationship between Platonism and eschatology.

Platonism is rooted in the ideas of the great ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (427–347 B.C.). Plato was one of the first philosophers to argue that reality is primarily ideal or abstract. With his ‘theory of forms,’ he asserted that ultimate reality is not found in objects and concepts that we experience on earth. Instead, reality is found in ‘forms’ or ‘ideas’ that transcend our physical world. These forms operate as perfect universal templates for everything we experience in the world. For example, all horses on earth are imperfect replicas of the universal ‘horseness’ that exists in another dimension. One result of Platonism was the belief that matter is inferior to the spiritual. Thus, there is a dualism between matter and the immaterial.3 This perspective naturally leads to negative

1 See Randy A. Alcorn, Heaven (Sandy, OR: Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2004). Alcorn devotes an Appendix to the topic, “Christoplatonism’s False Assumptions,” 475–82. 2 David Van Biema, “Christians Wrong about Heaven, Says Bishop,” Time [Online] February 7, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html; accessed March 23, 2009. See also N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008). 3 Diogenes Allen calls for balance on this point when he states, “Plato’s view is by no means that of Genesis, but it is not the total rejection of the world by the Gnostics and Manichaeans. We should not confuse Plato’s attitude to the physical universe, however much he stresses the need to transcend it and the body, with views which totally reject it, as superficial Christian writers so often do.” Diogenes Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 9.

perceptions concerning the nature of the physical world and even our human bodies. Plato’s account of Socrates in Phaedo is one such example. When sentenced to death, Socrates rebuked his friends for mourning over him by declaring that he longed for death so he could escape his carnal body and focus on higher spiritual values in a spiritual realm.4 For Plato (and Socrates), the human body is like a tomb for the soul. Plato’s ideas have had an enormous impact. Gary Habermas observes that Plato’s concept of forms, along with his cosmology and his views on the immortality of the soul, “probably has the greatest influence in the philosophy of religion.”5

This exaltation of the spiritual over the physical in Platonism carried over to Judaism as evidenced in the writings of the Jew, Philo (20 B.C.–A.D. 50).6 Philo, in an attempt to make the Old Testament more attractive to the Greeks influenced by the Platonic ideal, allegorized many Old Testament passages that appeared too crass and unworthy of God. For Philo, statements in the Old Testament that discussed the wrath of God or God changing his mind needed to be allegorized.

Platonism also influenced its more religious counterpart, Neo-Platonism. Neo- Platonism was a complex system for understanding reality that was founded by the Roman philosopher Plotinus (A.D. 204–270). The Egyptian-born Plotinus carried on some of the main ideas of Plato such as (1) there is an immaterial reality that exists apart from the physical world; (2) a strong distinction exists between an immaterial soul and the physical body; and (3) the immortal soul finds its ultimate fulfillment as it becomes one with an eternal, transcendent realm. According to Plotinus, the lowest level of reality is matter.7 Thus, matter is viewed very negatively in Neo-Platonism. Plotinus himself held such disgust for physical things that he even despised his own body. To be consistent with his philosophy, Plotinus did not take care of his physical health or hygiene, much to the chagrin of his students with whom he was sometimes affectionate.

Many of the early Christians were not suspicious of or threatened by Plato. According to Diogenes Allen, Plato “astounded the Apologists and the early Church Fathers.”8 For instance, when early Christians encountered Plato’s creation story in his

4 See, “Phaedo,” in Classics of Western Philosophy, ed. Steven M Cahn (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2002), 49–81. 5 Gary R. Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 859. 6 Ibid., 859-60. 7 See Christopher Kirwan, “Plotinus,” in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995), 689–90. According to Plotinus, the basis of all reality is an immaterial and indescribable reality called the One or the Good. There are several levels of reality that emanate from the One, much like ripples in a pond emanate from a dropped stone. The second level of reality is Mind or Intellect (nous). Mind results from the One’s reflection upon itself. The level below Mind is Soul. Soul operates in time and space and is actually the creator of time and space. Soul looks in two directions—upward to Mind and downward to Nature, which created the physical world. 8 Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 15.

Timaeus, some believed he had read Moses or received his insights from divine revelation.9 The similarity of some of Plato’s ideas with Christianity was seen as evidence why pagans should be open to Christianity.10

Platonic thinking influenced significant theologians of the early church. This was true for the Christians of the Eastern church, particularly those in the Alexandrian tradition such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. As Jeffrey Burton Russell states, “The great Greek fathers of Alexandria, Clement and Origen, firmly grounded in Scripture, were also influenced by Platonism and Stoicism.”11

Theologians of the Alexandrian tradition carried a high view of Greek philosophy and attempted to show that Christianity was consistent with the best of Greek philosophy. Viviano points out that Clement of Alexandria (150–215) followed in the footsteps of his predecessor Philo by adopting a “preference for an allegorical meaning of history which turns out, upon closer acquaintance, to transform much biblical history into general moral truths of a philosophical cast.”12 For Clement, God used philosophy to prepare the Greeks for Christ just like He used the law of Moses to prepare the Hebrew people for Christ. Clement held Socrates and Plato in high regard. He even believed that Plato served a role that was similar to that of Moses. In line with Greek philosophy, Clement viewed the body and matter as lesser in nature than the spirit (although he did not view the body as evil).

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254) was important in bringing Platonism into Christianity. As McGrath has observed, Origen “was a highly creative theologian with a strongly Platonist bent.”13 Viviano also points out that Origen “wrought some bold changes in Christian eschatology.”14 Origen “dissolved the Christian expectation of the resurrection of the body into the immortality of the soul, since Christian perfection consists, on this Platonizing view, in a progressive dematerialization.”15 He even went further than most of the early Christian theologians by asserting that “the resurrection body was purely spiritual.”16 Origen also understood kingdom texts in the Bible “in a purely spiritual, interior, private and realized sense.”17

9 See Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 15. Christians denied Plato’s view of the use of preexisting materials for creation. Christians asserted ‘creation out of nothing.’ 10 Ibid. 11 Jeffrey Burton Russell, A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997), 69. 12 Benedict T. Viviano, O.P. The Kingdom of God in History (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1988), 39. 13 Alister E. McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003), 33. 14 Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History, 39. 15 Ibid., 39-40. 16 McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven, 34. 17 Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History, 41.

The influence of Platonic thinking was not just on theologians of the eastern tradition. Alister McGrath observes that Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–97) “drew upon the ideas of the Jewish Platonist writer, Philo of Alexandria” in promoting “a Platonic world of ideas and values, rather than a physical or geographical entity.”18Ambrose’s pupil, Augustine of Hippo, too, was influenced by Platonic thinking. Allen refers to Augustine as “one of the great Christian Platonists.”19 According to Gary Habermas, “Christian thought also came under the influence of Platonism, as scholars of the third century such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen mixed this Greek philosophy with their theology. In particular, Augustine’s interpretation of Plato dominated Christian thought for the next thousand years after his death in the fifth century.”20 In his Confessions, Augustine openly describes the help he received from the Platonists. Augustine was also influenced by neo-platonism as well. As Viviano states, “we need only note that Augustine was strongly influenced by neo-Platonic philosophy and has even read Plotinus and Prophyry . . . . This philosophy was highly spiritual and other-worldly, centered on the one and the eternal, treating the material and the historically contingent as inferior stages in the ascent of the soul to union with the one.”21 Viviano summarizes the impact of Augustine’s Platonic thinking on the kingdom of God:

Thus Augustine was attracted to the spiritual interpretation of the kingdom we have already seen in Origen. Indeed, ultimately for Augustine, the kingdom of God consists in eternal life with God in heaven. That is the civitas dei, the city of God, as opposed to the civitas terrena.22

Augustine’s spiritual view of the kingdom contributed to his belief that the period of the church on earth is the thousand year reign of Christ. According to Viviano, “Augustine’s view would dominate and become the normal Roman Catholic view down to our own times.”23 It is difficult to deny the importance of Platonic thinking. As Habermas points out, “Plato has exercised an enormous influence on Western thought and must therefore be dealt with by those of all philosophical persuasions.”24 This influence also applies to the area of Christian eschatology.

18 McGrath, A Brief History of Heaven, 51. 19 Allen, Philosophy for Understanding Theology, 82. 20 Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” 860. Allen states, “The Greek Fathers and Augustine drew most extensively on the philosophy of Plato and the Platonists.” 91. 21 Viviano, The Kingdom of God in History, 52. 22 Ibid., 52-53. 23 Ibid., 54. Daley points out that near the turn of the sixth century Aeneas of Gaza wrote the “first Christian work to challenge long-accepted Platonic assumptions. . .” Brian E. Daley, S. J. The Hope of the Early Church (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 191. The Platonist doctrines that were challenged included reincarnation, the eternity of creation, and the preexistence of souls before their bodily existence. Daley points out that these views were “considered favorably as possibilities by Origen and Evagrius.” 24 Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” 860.

At this point, we shift specifically to the topic of Platonism and Christian eschatology. According to Craig Blaising, there have been two broad models of eternal life that have held by Christians since the time of the early church. The first he calls, the “spiritual vision model.”25 This model is influenced by Platonism.26 With this model, heaven is viewed primarily as a spiritual entity. Heaven is the highest level of ontological reality—the realm of spirit as opposed to base matter. “This is the destiny of the saved, who will exist in that nonearthly, spiritual place as spiritual beings engaged eternally in spiritual activity.”27 The spiritual vision model, Blaising argues, is a combination of biblical themes and cultural ideas that were common to the classical philosophical tradition. The biblical themes the spiritual vision model draws upon include:

4. the description of heaven as the destiny of the believing dead prior to the resurrection.28

In addition to the biblical themes, the spiritual vision model also drew upon cultural (Greek) ideas that were common to the classical philosophical tradition:

According to Blaising, “Central to all three of these is the classical tradition’s notion of an ontological hierarchy in which spirit is located at the top of a descending order of being. Elemental matter occupies the lowest place.”30 Heaven is realm of spirit as opposed to matter. Heaven is a nonearthly spiritual place for spiritual beings who are engaged only in spiritual activity. This heaven is also free from all change. Eternal life,

25 Craig A. Blaising, “Premillennialism” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 161. 26 Ibid., 162. Snyder calls this approach “the kingdom as inner spiritual experience model.” “As a distinct model it may be traced to the influence of Platonist and Neoplatonist ideas on Christian thinking and especially to Origen” Howard A. Snyder, Models of the Kingdom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1991), 42. 27 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 161. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

therefore, is viewed primarily as “cognitive, meditative, or contemplative.”31 The spiritual vision model has led many Christians to view eternal life “as the beatific vision of God—an unbroken, unchanging contemplation of the infinite reality of God.”32

In his book, Models of the Kingdom, Howard A. Snyder points out that a purely spiritual view of the kingdom, which he calls “the kingdom as inner spiritual experience model,” “may be traced to the influence of Platonist and Neoplatonist ideas on Christian thinking. . . .”33 According to Snyder this model “draws to some degree on Greek philosophical roots.”34 He also states that “One can sense the Platonism lying behind this model.”35 Snyder says: “Historically this model has often been tainted with a sort of Platonic disdain for things material, perhaps seeing the body or matter as evil or at least imperfect and imperfectible. It is thus dualistic, viewing the ‘higher’ spiritual world as essentially separate from the material world.”36

The spiritual vision model was inherently linked to allegorical and spiritual methods of interpretation that were opposed to literal interpretation based on historicalgrammatical contexts. Blaising also notes that the spiritual vision model “was intimately connected with practices of ‘spiritual interpretation’ that were openly acknowledged to be contrary to the literal meaning of the words being interpreted.”37 “The long term practice of reading Scripture in this way so conditioned the Christian mind that by the late Middle Ages, the spiritual vision model had become an accepted fact of the Christian worldview.”38

In contrast to the spiritual vision model, the second model Blaising discusses is the “new creation model.” This model is contrary to Platonism and the spiritual vision model and emphasizes the physical, social, political, and geographical aspects of eternal life. It emphasizes a coming new earth, the renewal of life on this new earth, bodily resurrection, and social and political interactions among the redeemed.39 As he states, “The new creation model expects that the ontological order and scope of eternal life is essentially continuous with that of present earthly life except for the absence of sin and death.”40 Thus, eternal life is embodied life on earth. This approach “does not reject

31 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 162. 32 Ibid. 33 Snyder, Models of the Kingdom, 42. 34 Ibid., 52. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., 54. 37 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 165. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 162. 40 Ibid.

physicality or materiality, but affirms them as essential both to a holistic anthropology and to the biblical idea of a redeemed creation.”41 This approach, according to Blaising, follows the language of passages like Isaiah 25, 65, 66; Revelation 21; and Romans 8 which speak of a regenerated earth. A new creation model emphasizes the future relevance of matters such as renewal of the world and universe, nations, kings, economics, agriculture, and social-political issues. In sum, a new creation model operates on the belief that life in the future kingdom of God is largely similar to God’s purposes for the creation before the fall of Adam, which certainly involved more than just a spiritual element. Thus, the final Heaven is not an ethereal spiritual presence in the sky. As Russell D. Moore points out, “The point of the gospel is not that we would go to heaven when we die. Instead, it is that heaven will come down, transforming and renewing the earth and the entire universe.”42 Far from being only a spiritual entity, the eternal destiny of the redeemed includes a holistic renewal of human existence and our environment:

The picture then is not of an eschatological flight from creation but the restoration and redemption of creation with all that entails: table fellowship, community, culture, economics, agriculture and animal husbandry, art, architecture, worship— in short, life and that abundantly.43

The new creation model appears to have been the primary approach of the church of the late first and early second centuries A.D. It was found in apocalyptic and rabbinic Judaism and in second century Christian writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons.44 But, as Blaising asserts, the spiritual vision model would take over and become “the dominant view of eternal life from roughly the third century to the early modern period.”45

41 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 162. 42 Russell D. Moore, “Personal and Cosmic Eschatology,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B&H, 2007), 912. 43 Ibid., 859. 44 Blaising, “Premillennialism,” 164. 45 Ibid.

http://www.aish.com/sp/k/48951781.html

...For the sake of creation, the sparks which began on a very high spiritual level were sent down to the lowest of spiritual levels, a place of great spiritual impurity. To make creation, God drew out exactly as many sparks as He deemed necessary to make creation, and left the remainder for man to utilize as a partner in perfecting creation.

There is not an infinite amount of Holy Sparks in creation. In fact, history is measured by these sparks, and will come to a close when all sparks have been drawn out of the tohu and returned to their holy source Above. It is then — once all the sparks that God has made available to mankind are expended — that by definition the Messianic Period must begin.

How does one use up Holy Sparks? Through the learning of Torah and the performance of mitzvot, Holy Sparks are redeemed, purified, and ascend to Above. Indeed, transgressions also use up Holy Sparks, but in the process the sparks themselves become defiled and require “cleansing” before being able to ascend. The cleansing process comes in the form of either sincere repentance by the transgressor, or through Heavenly-ordained suffering...

What will that mean, to return to how we were in the Garden before the fall? Would it mean that man would have no knowledge of good and evil?

I don't claim any special knowledge, but your question struck me, in that I've not heard the topic discussed.

My only offering is to recall Christ's admonition that in order to "receive" the kingdom, one must become like a child.

In terms of knowledge then, and the (future) relationship between a (heavenly) Father and child, I wonder if there is such a thing as returning to a place of relative innocence. And I guess it bears noting that innocence does not necessarily equate to ignorance.

My point is simply that there may be knowledge that is best "unknown". Perhaps you would agree that there are many things we learn in this life - that we would rather NOT know. Essentially (for me anyway) this knowledge falls into the category of the knowing what evil man can inflict upon fellow man - the abhorrent evils of child molestation, etc.

Worse yet, the knowledge of the selfishness (evil) that lies within my own heart.

These things I would rather not know...

I would define free will as the fundamental choice to think ( identify, integrate knowledge with logic) or not to think (evade, fail to see, deny or fake reality. If we wish to live as man then we must choose to think.

I think in the current church age it is God who draws us to our Savior Jesus Christ. So in this age I guess my free will led me to realize that I did not save myself.

I do believe we see dispensations where free will is at work. Adam in the garden choose to eat the fruit after Eve did. At the end of the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ the descendants of the Tribulation survivors choose to rebel after Satan is let loose. IOW, when given free will (even before the fall) we make the wrong choices. It is truly merciful that God intervenes for us and saves any of us.

One cannot derive purpose or morality from pure reason. IMO.

For instance, most Americans believe all men are equal. This is not a rational POV, of itself. Since every person is different, by definition they are all unequal.

Now I personally believe God created Man, and that we are equal because he created us equal. While I do not believe one can derive this position from the exercise of pure reason, once one accepts it you can derive all other, or at least almost all other, precepts of morality and ethics from it.

In the TV show Star Trek the Vulcans, who were supposed to exist on the plane of pure logic and rationality, had a greeting and farewell of “May you live long and prosper.” Which I always thought was hilarious, since the idea that a long life or prosperity is desirable cannot be derived from pure reason.

Of course reason can be used to work towards irrational ends, or at least immoral ones. We saw a lovely example this week with the CO theater shooting. The perp very obviously designed his attack using a great deal of reason to make it effective.

Perhaps I should turn your question around. Give me a precept of morality that you derive from pure reason and I will try to show you why you are mistaken.

in classical, historical chrstianity Adam's time in the garden was not meant to be his permanent state but a mere period of testing, after which he would have been translated (without death) to a spiritual heaven?

You are quite correct that this is the classical historical Christian position. I believe what the original article is pointing out is precisely that this position is based primarily on imported Greek philosophy rather than on the Bible.

If you disagree, could you point out where in the Bible it states that the Garden or Earth was to be only a temporary period of testing? I know of no such statements.

The Bible itself does not, AFAIK, give us any reason to believe Adam or Eve would have died had they not sinned, or that they would have "promoted" to Heaven.

Conscious beings, by definition, have free will. If they don’t, they are merely automatons. And God created beings with free will because he wanted friends, not robots.

The first exercise of free will in the Bible was not Adam’s, it was Satan’s. He exercised his free will to rebel against God.

My theory is that Satan’s challenge to God was that creatures of free will would not choose to serve Him. Christ answered that claim definitively to the contrary.

So after the various events foretold in the Bible, such as the Last Judgment, men and angels will still have free will and therefore the ability to do evil. But IMO God will not have any reason to tolerate it any longer and will rdeal with it accordingly whenever it pops up.

YMMV, and probably does.

It is a shame that a dilettante like me should be the one speaking for philosophy here, but one does one's best with what one has. Herewith, inchoate thoughts:

Habakkuk says God is of purer eyes then to behold evil. Yet Job offers us God interacting with the Accuser. So we have a problem. CAN God NOT know the evil one -- better than he knows himself?

It seems to me that one way Adam and Eve came to know evil was by experience and commission. That certainly is one sort of knowledge but maybe not the best or fullest sort.

I certainly encounter among the gentiles those who "know" guilt, because, though they may deny it and in some ways be unaware of it, they ARE guilty and they know it. But they know it without hope. To me that suggests that their knowledge is incomplete. They do not know themselves in the light of the redemption wrought by God in Christ. Nor do they really know evil in the context and fuller light provided to those who have turned themselves over to God.

A "bad guy" may "know" with intimacy the back alleys and filth of the urban combat zone where he works, but does he understand them, their being and meaning, as well as the angels or even a halfway decent social worker?

Put it another way: When I am asleep, in one way I know sleep best of all. But I do not know sleep as well as a sleep scientist, who not only sleeps but when he is awake he inquires deeply into what sleep is.

Waking understands both sleeping and waking. Sleeping understands neither. Holiness understands profanity better than profanity understands holiness.

Heck! If all the music I hear is rap and hip-hop, I may distinguish between good and not so good rap and hip-hop. But if my ears are ever opened to hear Bach, then, I think I can know more about rap and hip-hop than I did when they were all I knew.

The knowledge the serpent offered was knowledge that hampers knowing.

As to the inclination to evil and freedom -- and pardon the sexism: Suppose two women are before me, one a ravaged meth whore who will tolerate me if I will allow her to devour my money in her addiction, the other a lovely, wise, virtuous, and pious woman who loves me with the spousal love that seeks my good and the good of the relationship.

If I have ANY inclination toward the junkie, it seems to me it must be because I neither see nor understand what she is. Therefore my inclination arises from an unknowing will lacking in understanding. Such a will is not free.

But the clearer my vision and the deeper my understanding, the more I will be drawn by the good and beautiful woman and the more I will give consent to that attraction. In this case, appetite and reason work together to help me see and choose the good. I can entertain, as a mere proposition, the idea of pursuing the junkie, but it does not draw me, BECAUSE my will is so free it no longer can be drawn by evil.

All this is to reflect on what it might mean to "know good and evil" and to be free.

Please forgive my tardy reply. I've been arguing elsewhere.

If I understand your analysis correctly, based upon your understanding of God, then God expects us to do certain things for Him in order for us to receive His favor. This view is certainly different from the Protestant view that believes God is present to help us and He neither seeks nor wants our help. He only wants us to acknowledge Him.

Man was created to obey G-d's commandments. That is the purpose of our existence. It isn't something we do to "work our way into Heaven." It's simply something we do because we have been commanded. G-d is gracious to reward our efforts and just to punish our sins, but the commandments are an end in themselves.

By obeying G-d's commandments we bring holiness into the physical world. By disobeying we destroy holiness. Every commandment we obey unleashes unseen spiritual forces in the world; every sin we commit does the opposite.

The sole purpose for the creation the the physical world (when G-d could merely have created spiritual worlds) and a creature in G-d's image (free will) was this: letaqqen `olam bemalkhut Shaqqay (to rectify the world in the Kingdom of the A-mighty). This is very different from the beliefs of any chrstian church, Protestant or otherwise, but this is what it's all about nevertheless.

So I understood.

If you disagree, could you point out where in the Bible it states that the Garden or Earth was to be only a temporary period of testing? I know of no such statements.

Neither do I. As a Fundamentalist Protestant converting to Catholicism I was told none of this because Catholics assume that Fundamentalist Protestants believe exactly the same thing: that life on earth (even for the sinless Adam) was a prelude to the "beatific vision." My whole point was that no one seems to be discussing this point of contention and that Fundamentalist Protestants have no conception of "heaven" apart from man's creation in paradise.

The Bible itself does not, AFAIK, give us any reason to believe Adam or Eve would have died had they not sinned, or that they would have "promoted" to Heaven.

As I have said, I agree with you. Thus another reason for my being unable to remain Catholic beyond six years or so. This issue is so fundamental, yet so invisible, that no one talks about it or even knows it exists. Catholics thing Protestants believe Adam was destined for a non-earthly "beatific vision" and Protestants think Catholics believe that without sin all mankind would live immortally on an unspoiled paradise earth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.