How much longer can Wolverines last? Only 13,000 or so left in the wild

wow.... I saw one on the latest ALONE episode but that was in Alaska....last long-term Wolverine population in Minnesota was 1899... extirpated.

https://alaskapublic.org/news/2024-09-12/study-gives-updated-estimate-for-wolverine-population-on-alaskas-north-slope

estimate of 488 wolverines on the North Slope, ... that earlier estimate was for a North Slope population of at least 821...

  Caribou make up a lot of the diet of North Slope wolverines, and the caribou population declines of recent years may have affected wolverines, they said....

Habitat degradation and fragmentation led the U.S. Fish and Wildlife last year to classify the Lower 48 wolverine population as  threatened. 

Canada hosts a major portion of the global wolverine population, with estimates suggesting over 10,000 mature individuals, primarily in the western and northern regions. While populations are generally stable in the north, they are declining in southern areas like the BC/Alberta mountains due to habitat loss and climate .... but population densities vary a lot and numbers are difficult to estimate.

 https://wolverinefoundation.org/distribution

 Present populations are found only in the central to northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia

Maybe about 3000 in Europe....

 

a global population of roughly 13,700 wolverines is considered a

vulnerable, declining, and fragmented population

https://y2y.net/blog/global-wolverine-research/

wolverine range and populations have shrunk dramatically over the last century, primarily due to trapping and habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Exploitation was inferred as a major driver of declines; halving the current trapping mortality was recommended (Mowat et al., 2020) and regionally adopted – one of the very few recent wolverine conservation actions in Canada. Alberta’s harvest quota of one per trapline (plus one incidental) has never been investigated; very low occupancy and densities (Fisher et al., 2013, Heim et al., 2017, Mowat et al., 2020) suggest it is unsustainable in some areas.

  Hunters and trappers in Alaska harvest about 550 wolverines each year.

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildlifenews.view_article&articles_id=692

In Scandinavian countries they lose domestic sheep and reindeer to wolverines, and the government provides compensation to herders. 

Wolverine fur is primarily bought by

specialized furriers, international auction houses, and, for raw pelts, Arctic/sub-Arctic indigenous communities for use as frost-resistant parka trim. Key buyers include Wolverine Furs (Detroit), Mano Swartz Furs (MD), 

Weirdness as anthropologist Malinkowski's Magic Daimones witchcraft in early Christianity vs the Lactating Logosless

 Malinowski’s concept of the “weird.” These are contemporary scholars who view level of weirdness of practice enough to call something magic. I think that weirdness to our contemporary selves draws us to this topic, but we must understand that weird to us is not unusual within a specific society in the past.

 Ph.D. on Roman magic in light of Christianity

 Ancient Christian authors demarcated magic from Christianity using arguments
and rhetoric developed from earlier pagan authors regarding superstitio....my work on the strand of scholarship that argues that magic practices are
rituals because they have social value and involve performance of religious behavior.
Moreover, magic practices contain aspects that could be considered based on collective
beliefs, but mostly at the regional and local levels.....

  Tertullian, in De idololatria, discusses this economy in Carthage, mainly in the view that to be Christian is not to produce products for use in pagan or magic practices, which both fall under the category of idolatry for him...........Tertullian wrote on his love for the empire and pushed a view of Christianity mostly found in North Africa during the third century CE

 magical papyri texts “mention over 450 plants, minerals, animal products, herbs, and other substance as presumably ‘pharmaceutically active’ in recorded spells, incantations, formulas, and imprecations

 Luijendijk argued that gospel healing amulets were a side business for Christian priests who sold them as a protection for women and children in Oxyrhynchus...

Oxyrhynchus,

an ancient city in Upper Egypt (modern-day el-Bahnasa), is one of the most significant archaeological sites in the world, renowned for the "Oxyrhynchus Papyri".

 Augustine in Confessions offers evidence that the educated elite survived from selling these rituals early in their careers 

 Apuleius’ text and North African curse tablets that solely invoke a daimon (see chapter 4) suggest
that some pagans in North Africa believed daimones to be the most important type of
divine entity for delivering the power of prayer and ritual.2...daimones in the aether were simply the spirits of those who died, like Christian souls....Tertullian also showed a similar belief in daimones as Apuleius, but twisted the belief using his understanding of earlier Greek Christian works to separate daemones from human souls.
Tertullian had stated, “almost no human lacks a daemon, which were the cause of
accidental and violent death.”31 In this quote, Tertullian argued that all daemones only
had a harmful nature and were not the same as a human soul.

 people did not trust and feared female magic practitioners (or witches) because most people believed in their power and that witches used their powers to fulfill their own desires.

  Justin Martyr (c. 100 – 165 CE).
Justin had stated, “sometimes demons [daimones] appear in dreams, sometimes by
magical imposition…. We [Christians] who formerly delighted in fornication but now
embrace chastity alone; we who formerly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to
good….”69 This passage shows that Justin felt the need to address magic as both a rival
practice and as a response to Jesus and his apostles performing magic and interacting
with daimones in the first century Gospels

  Tertullian argued that Jesus’ miracles demonstrate Christ as being made from the god
substance, or [the Holy] Spirit....Tertullian in this work also states that he affirms the
existence of spiritual essences (spiritales substantias), which philosophers knew
as daimones. As an example, he points to Socrates admitting that he was attended
by a daimon as a boy and his awaiting the judgment of a demon (daemonii).

 Tertullian further argued that when Christ returned the period of punishment
would end, all the dead would be restored to their original flesh, and their final judgement
would come with their final earthly death.84 This argument shifted pagan and Hellenistic
understandings of the underworld into something Christian where all people, even good
Christians, go to be punished and await resurrection, which did not align with Hellenistic
pagan or Christian beliefs.

 Arnobius, like Justin Martyr and Tertullian, defends Jesus as a miracle worker and a
wielder of godly power rather than magic rituals taken from Egyptian religion. He argued
that Jesus did not require the incantations, rituals, or products of a magician to facilitate
his deeds because he operated “solely by the inherent might of His [Jesus] authority.”123
In contrast, magic experts used “the deceits (praestigiae) of demons done by the tricks of
the magical arts.”

  Augustine also used “daemonia” to denote evil entities, not daimones in the pagan sense....educated elite, including catechumen, often dabbled in magic practices, just as Augustine did with astrology to make a living and for his own curiosity, 

 The doctor revealed that he provided a sleeping drug (mandragora, or mandrake plant), rather than a poison, which caused a death-like slumber...

a potent

deliriant hallucinogen due to toxic tropane alkaloids (scopolamine, hyoscyamine, atropine). It causes intense, often terrifying hallucinations, delirium, and sedation, rather than the mind-expanding effects of psychedelics. It is extremely poisonous...

 Here, Tertullian is being exclusive in his Christianity suggesting that making and selling products that were used in non-Christian ritual, even healing products that Christians might use was all idolatry and should bar these individuals from the Christian Church....

 "Among cures, certain substances supplied by nature have very great
efficacy; magic also puts on some bandage; the art of healing counteracts
with lancet and cup. For some, making haste, take also beforehand a
protecting draught; but sexual intercourse drains it off, and they are dry again. " ...Tertullian and the North African Christian authors after him all use the term daemon in a Christian context of an evil entity attached to humans but his discussions of daemones shows that Apuleius’ understanding was more common among North African pagans and Christians. Tertullian and his successors were making an
argument for a newer Christian understanding of daimon, which eventually did become the normative view of demons.

............

 The Christian authors of Africa Proconsularis spent much of their writings
defending Christianity and establishing their own doctrine, which led to an ongoing
discussion of magic among themselves. 

 The words in this line are nonsensical, but contain palindromes at least in sound; the first and third words are in opposite directions and the middle word is a true palindrome

 Iaioō (Ιαω, a representation of Yahweh in magical texts) has extra letters representing localized pronunciation, which is like the double consonants found on other Carthaginian tablets but with extra vowels representing long vowels, a difference of local dialect. This tablet was produced from a grimoire, as it contains common formulas, magical characters, and angelic names found in the magical papyri...

 the Greek daemon names of Egyptian
figures as having the necessary power for this task. These Egyptian figures are not the
spirits of the dead or Christian demons, but rather minor deities or intermediaries of the
gods. Like other Carthaginian tablets, this one directly invokes daemones rather than a
specific deity because of the belief that these figures would intervene in earthly events,
unlike the gods and goddesses. 

 So the main magic use was for love binding and chariot racing sports....and protection amulets....and gladitorial combat...

 most Christians and Jewish people believed in the power of daimones, as in the spirits of the dead, often referring to the person buried in the tomb; these were the most invoked
entities in Carthage and Hadrumetum. Several tablets from Carthage and Hadrumetum
could suggest Christian origin, such as DT 231 in Carthage, which invoked “Lord.” 

 Cicero argued that Vatinius as a Pythagorean was “accustomed to call up the
spirits of the dead” and make “sacrifices to ghosts of the dead with the entrails of boys.”9
Cicero showed some knowledge of the traditions found in the magical papyri (grimoires)
and displays his attitude towards these practices as magic by describing them as “unheard
of and vile rites” [inaudita ac nefaria sacra] along with associating Pythagoreanism with
these practices.

Greek and Roman Necromancy

Daniel Ogden

Copyright Date: 2001

Published by: Princeton University Press

 

 Constantine had instituted the first three of the laws against magic and its
practitioners between 317 and 324 CE....The idea of
“virtuous minds being turned to lust” seems to be pointing to amatory curses.

 remedies for healing sought by individuals or concoctions for
agriculture to protect crops and human labor were not to be included in magic
accusations.40 This law appears to protect agricultural and folk healing, which Galen had
spoken against in the second century CE

...................... https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/8/1075 

  In the ancient Greek world, the logos replaced myth as the privileged archaic form to recount possible explanations for events of all kinds to which there was no immediate answer. The passage from myth to logos, however, not only makes explicit a methodological shift in human reflection about oneself and the world, but also the form it can take. Images and symbols are conceptualised through words: reasoned and intellectual discourse becomes the key to accessing knowledge as an explanation of the whole. This word, logos, however, carries with it from the outset a certain ambiguity2; not only does it indicate human discourse, the explanation of something, but it also has a divine connotation3. This is the case with Plato4, for whom the logos belonged to the sphere of ideas that came from the Hyperuranium created by the demiurge. It continued, although differently, with the Stoics, and Aristotle himself developed a very rational philosophy in which the divine principle was completely “logical” and absolutely disembodied5. It is, however, a word that corresponds to the human word as an expression or channel of intelligence, of the rationality that explains and orders everything, giving cosmic law to the chaos of the living multiple. Later, Plotinus, although not always using the term in a homogeneous way, distinguished logos precisely in more Aristotelian terms, as a logical definition, from the “one” as a producing power (the more material Stoic sense), to which is added a third logos—of clearly Platonic memory—which is found in the nous and has a higher degree of transcendence. Therefore, in Plotinus, the logos assumes an increasingly richer connotation

 the Logos transcends the paradigms that dominate the Hebrew Scriptures» (Waetjen 2001, pp. 277–78). As Časni states, «The Logos is the source and the finality of all things. For John the Evangelist, the Word is not just a personification, but a living Being who is a source of life. Jesus Christ is the Logos, which includes Christ’s full work of salvation» (Časni 2015, p. 197). Therefore, this Logos is not exclusively human word, discourse, idea, or creative word, but it is also not the Hebrew wisdom11; it is a special person in the flesh12. What is more, while the beginning of the Prologue still narrates the precedents of the logos, emphasising its union with God, here it expresses the union of the logos with the human sarchs and thus the approach of the divine to all that is limited, finite, fragile, and transient. In this way, the logos becomes not only audible, as the divine word transmitted through prophets, but visible to the human eye.

 sarchs has roots in Eastern Europe, primarily appearing among Jewish communities. It likely derives from Yiddish, possibly relating to an occupational role or characteristic, or acting as a variant of older Ashkenazi surnames that reflect a "search" or "seeker"

 , at the moment of Jesus’ abandonment on the cross. There, God is at his farthest distance from himself because he is the negation of relational fullness, typical of the Trinity. The cry of Jesus’ abandonment is the highest expression of the Logos that becomes “logosless,” but being moved by love, it also becomes the highest expression of God, the principle of love that is, the more it gives itself.

  The incarnate Logos becomes the absence of the word, and with that the absence of God himself, because the word without a recipient to receive it is a word without meaning, a broken word. Therefore, the human condition that emerges from the revealed datum of the Christian God is a condition of fullness and truth already given—because sons in the Son who is logos from eternity, but who is incarnated in history—still to be realised and discovered in the course of humanity’s journey. To become fully person means, therefore, to bring the Trinitarian communion to visibility through the cry of abandonment of the Logos-Flesh, and to express and build community not only with words but also with their absence.

 https://www.mdpi.com/2410-9789/3/3/20

Augustine observed that he was sent to school to obtain learning, the use of which he did not understand (quid utilitatis esset),18 but he learned classical texts and experienced a sinful delight in them.

This difficult relationship between classical literature and Christian doctrine was experienced by other contemporaries of Augustine. After giving up his family, friends and home to embrace asceticism, Jerome confessed that the only sacrifice he failed to make was to “give up the bookshop that I had assembled for myself in Rome with so much care and fatigue”.19 After reading Plautus and Cicero, Jerome found that when he begun to read the prophets, their style seemed barbaric and repugnant to him. Hence, his disturbing dream, in which he was condemned because he was a follower of Cicero, not of Christ (non Christianus, sed Ciceronianus)

 Ready to demonstrate the contradictions of classical philosophy and the absurdities of poets’ fables, Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, also perceived classical culture as an artifice of demons, which prevented men from arriving at the truth....

 Although Jerome resided in Rome to serve Pope Damasus, he continued
to write to and for educated Italo-Roman Christian elites after he went to Bethlehem

 Clement is shown as hiring an Egyptian magic practitioner to perform necromancy to evocate a soul for a consultation

 In the Life of Saint Hilarion the Hermit, Jerome described an episode in Gaza where a man
in love with a “virgin of God” was unable to seduce her, so he learned the “magical arts”
in Memphis at Asclepius’ temple. Jerome teased his knowledge of Asclepius while
marking his worship as idolatry, “the priests of Asclepius who do not cure souls but ruins
them.”131 Jerome described a binding spell:

He inscribed some verbal monstrosities and monstrous forms on plates of
Cyprian bronze and buried them under the threshold of the Girl’s house.
At once the virgin went mad, She cast off her veil, she swung her hair
around, she gnashed her teeth, and she shouted the young man’s
name….132

Here, Jerome identified an amatory curse (binding spell) with the suitor acquiring
Cyprian bronze to inscribe written formulas (verbal monstrosities) and depictions
(monstrous forms) before depositing it under her floor to activate the curse. This curse
follows an eastern approach to magic and shows a negative Christian attitude towards
making this virgin of God (a girl) become frenzied with love.

 Jerome’s discussion of magic, like the Clementine Romances, was not part of a specifically Italo-Christian discourse, but they were part of his intended audience for a broader Roman-
Christian narrative on magic.

 Pliny the Elder described peoples foreign to Rome as evil-eyers, or
people who could ruin the environment or kill babies with praise and cause people to die
by staring at them. The word for that he uses for sorcery (effascinare) suggests that this
type of magic (a natural genetic type) was in opposition to Fascinus whose phallic 
representations were believed to avert the evil eye.

winged phallus, worshipped as a protector against envy, sorcery, and the evil eye (

fascinum). Phallic representations, known as fascinum amulets or effigies, were ubiquitous, appearing as jewelry, wind chimes (tintinnabula), reliefs, and votive offerings designed to ward off evil...in combination with other symbols, such as a fist making the "fig sign" (manus fica), which was believed to represent female genitalia and fertility....The victory of the phallus over the power of the evil eye may be represented by the phallus ejaculating towards a disembodied eye.

https://www.mdpi.com/2410-9789/3/3/20 

 the doctrine of the Λόγος σπερματικός, 

Lógos spermatikós

which is of Stoic origin and is a cornerstone of Justin’s thought (Holte 1958, pp. 109–68). According to Justin, the Logos instilled the seeds of truth, even before his incarnation. However, although the action of the Logos was at work before the incarnation, this dispensation remained partial and obscure: “All the right principles that philosophers and legislators have discovered and expressed well, they owe to whatever of the Word they have found and contemplated in part (κατὰ μέρος)”.52 What Greek philosophers theorized belongs to the Christians, as well.53 However, there is an element to keep in mind as Justin points out: the revelation formulated in the ancient world is a partial revelation: “The authors were able to perceive the truth obscurely thanks to the sowing of the Word that had been implanted in them. But it is one thing to possess a semen (σπέρμα), and a likeness proportionate to one’s capacity, and it is another thing to possess reality itself

 Medieval Christianity transformed the more corporeal ghost encountered in pagan cultures with the disembodied form known today 

 Epimenides stopped a plague, no one saw him eat or crap - 

 Epimenides' Role: Epimenides of Crete is a prime example of this tradition: a 6th-century BC figure known for sleeping for decades in a cave of Zeus, practicing purification (catharsis), and possessing the ability to project his soul....Epimenides heard the Logos during this cave meditation and believed in the immortality of the Soul....Pythagoras was taught by Epimenides...

https://themarginaliareview.com/is-philosophy-magic-the-roots-of-reason-in-parmenides/ 

  the opening of John’s Gospel, speaks of the Logos facing “the god,” a most strange appellation when translated literally, as I have done, but most translations do not. For the text then immediately adds that “god was the Logos,” dropping the definite article, which it resumes a sentence later. All of this is straightforward enough in its context, but that context has never been rendered into an English translation. The results would shock and offend pious sensibilities.

 the problem of "shared essence"....

 According to Heraclitus, the soul has its own Logos, which increases itself according to its own needs (fr. 115); and is unfathomable (you could not find its ends... so deep is its Logos, [fr. 45]). All things are one, if one listens to the Law (Logos) (fr. 50). [2]

 The concept of the logos in Philo of Alexandria,
Clement of Alexandria, and Origen

 what is called God is, Philo states, his most ancient word
(the Logos). [9] The Logos is also an utterance of God (different from the Word of God,
which could be explained by the Aramaic Memra): as God’s words and actions coincide,
what is uttered does not differ from what is done (Som. XXXI, 1.182). By speaking, God
creates; there is nothing between the word and the deed (Sac. XVIII, 65). As God outstrips all creation, the word of the uncreated God outruns the word of creation, it can outstrip and
overtake everything, Philo writes (Sac. XVIII, 66). The Logos (the word of God) provides a
universal bond, consolidation of things in the world, and essence:

 Similarly to Philo, Origen explains the use of the definite article in John 1.1: for him the article is to show that the God is “very” God, in contrast with the Son who is just God (Comm John 2.7.16–18).
Also, he claims that the world got created through the Son, which positions him as an executive force of God in the world. The Father could not have ever lacked wisdom, nor could this wisdom have taken any form different from what it now possesses as the Second Person of the Trinity (Princ. 1.2.2). The Logos is in the beginning, that is, in wisdom, always. Its being in wisdom, which is called the beginning, does not prevent it from being with God and from being God, and it is not simply with God, but is in the beginning, in wisdom, with God, insists Origen. 

"Hypostatic" refers to

something that is fundamental, essential, or pertains to a distinct substance or personhood, derived from the Greek hypostasis (underlying reality). It is commonly used in theology (the hypostatic union of Christ's two natures)

 In Origen, however, the Logos is not speech or utterance, as that would make it a secondary function of God (Comm John 1.24.151), see Orbe 1991.

 

 wow the Logos as from the teat!! Prolaction!!

 

 belched time? 

 

 So Jesus Christ is prolacted from the heart of Sophia/God/Logos...

 AI says:

Origin and Iconography: The image dates back to at least the 2nd century in Roman catacombs. It depicts the Virgin Mary feeding the infant Jesus, symbolizing the "Word made flesh" (Logos) being nourished physically.

Theological Meaning: The imagery, particularly popular in Egypt and later in the Orthodox Church (Galaktotrophousa), serves to emphasize Christ's humanity, which was often debated in early heresies. Milk was viewed as "processed blood," paralleling the Eucharist and the passion.

Logos as Milk: Early Church fathers, specifically Clement of Alexandria (preceding Origen), used the metaphor of milk to represent the Logos (Christ). In this context, the Church is viewed as a nurturing mother, and Christ is the "milk" of the Father, providing sustenance to believers.

 wow weird! 

 the original meaning of logos, frequently used by Homer, is “collecting and
laying down” and “giving an account,

 https://retrievalphilosophy.s3.amazonaws.com/Copy+of+EPS_+Search+for+the+Logos+Paper.pdf

  Protagoras advances the Heraclitian20
flux doctrine with this “two-logoi” statement. He notes that “Sextus [Empiricus] reports
that Protagoras held that “the reasons [logoi] of all the appearances [phainomenon]
subsist in the matter.” The two-logoi, on Schiappa’s interpretation makes the statement
more about metaphysics than about there being two sides to every argument as in a
debate. Schiappa makes the case that Plato, in the Theaetetus must have had a similar
understanding of Protagoras advancing a Heraclitian metaphysical position and says
“when Plato discussed Protagoras’ theory of knowledge in the Theaetetus, he cited
Heraclitus (as well as Empedocles) as someone who would agree with the notion that “if
you speak of something as big, it will also appear small; if you speak of it as heavy, it
will also appear light; and similarly everything.’”

 Mind is corporeal in Stoicism. Logos
is analogous with pnuma, heat or breath, by which things are alive. Pneuma “became
the vehicle of the logos” for the Stoics. The Logos is “the Soul of the world, Mind and33
Nature, Nature, God. Nature is an artistic or creative fire, and thus God is the seminal
Logos of the universe.” Hillar says that:34
The pneuma, though corporeal, is not matter itself. Pneuma, unlike other
elements, pervades the universe and establishes the individual parts of it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philo (book of John) considered Sophia as Mother of Logos (pneuma substance) or Wife of God or just Logos: Marian Hillar Logos book

 Some passages expressly identify the Logos and Wisdom; elsewhere Wisdom is represented as the spouse of God, and again as the mother of the Logos.

Commentary on the Book of Wisdom 

So for Philo the Logos was Reason (meaning Ratio) but for the Book of John the Logos was the Son of God as a historical man....as was also the cause for the letters of Paul....in that transition of the Logos the Word of God spoken through a specific Man, got lost the Mother of Logos as Sophia, the wife of God...

 The figure of Christ found in the early epistles such as in Paul and
Hebrews is represented as a heavenly cosmic being revealed through
the Hebrew scripture and not known from the revelation of the man
Jesus. Paul received his revelation from the Spirit and not from any
direct experience with a human Jesus.
4. Paul and early authors of the epistles place the death and resurrection
of Christ in a supernatural realm. Their information derives not from
historical events, but is deduced from Hebrew scripture.

 https://www.adventistas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Marian_Hillar_From_Logos_to_Trinity__The_Evolution....pdf

 The Christ of Paul’s epistles shared many features with the “savior
deities” of ancient “mystery cults” who had performed salvific acts.
7. Paul’s heavenly Christ was modeled on the Hellenistic concept of the
Greek Logos widespread in Philo’s version and of Jewish Wisdom from
the wisdom literature.

  resurrection (an extension of the intermediary and suppliant role ascribed by Philo to the Logos). Justin tried to explain the doctrine
of the Logos by philosophical speculation using all available apparatus.
The Johannine Logos is nonphilosophical; it is based on the Old Testament
doctrine of the Word (Davar = Logos) as the expression of God in the creation
and revelation. Analysis of the texts shows that Justin’s interpretation of the
Logos in the religious context is a Philonic one as an intermediate between
transcendent God and man and as an agent of God or Second God, and not
the Stoic one as the universal reason. Justin’s Logos is Jesus Christ/Messiah
understood in the light of a fancy reading of the Old Testament “Word of
God” and Greek philosophy as an individual, pneumatic, and personified
intermediary of God.

  One of them
assumes that we are led by Justin to believe that the Logos is immanent in
God as his attribute of reason, in the preexistent, innate, unbegotten form
(whatever it may mean) of the Son of God, similar to the Philonic concept of
immanent God’s Power (later described as the logos endiathetos), which “came
forth” as a separate pneumatic being (logos prophorikos) as the Christ,

 same Pneuma (Spirit) that is mentioned in Genesis and is “said
to be borne upon the water.”86 This “begotten” pneumatic Logos/Christ in the
Justin version does not correspond to the concept of the expressed Logos of
Philo or Theophilus, which can be described as the logos prophorikos, because
Philo denied its numerical separation from the Father. Philo did not break with
the Jewish tradition of the “spoken word” as God’s action or expression of his
power. An interpretation of the Logos similar to Philo’s we may find in John’s
(Jn. 1:1) image where there is no generation of the Logos as being or Spirit
(Pneuma), but as a power with God, only it became incarnated in Jesus (i.e.,
it became the man Jesus). So in John’s scheme there was only one generation
of the Son of God – his incarnation or embodiment in the man Jesus who
became Christ/Messiah. In the Justin scheme, on the contrary, there are two
generations: the first before the creation as a being, the Pneumatic Logos, the
Son of God who has the name Christ because of his function and commission,
and the second as his incarnation into Jesus, the man.

  Philo maintained that this “generation” of the Logos was eternal in accordance with his concept of eternal creation of the world as well.

 Theophilus writes about the Logos: 

 Therefore God, having his own Logos innate in his own bowels, generated him together
with his own Sophia, vomiting him forth before everything else. He used this Logos as
his servant in the things created by him, and through him he made all things. . . . It was
he, Spirit [Pneuma] of God and Beginning and Sophia and Power of the Most High
who came down into the prophets and spoke through them about the creation of the
world and all the rest.

 

Theophilus of Antioch

(fl. 169–182 AD) was the seventh bishop of Antioch and a significant early Christian apologist, noted for being the first known writer to use the term "Trinity" (trias) to describe God,

  For the divine scripture itself teaches us that Adam said he
“heard the voice.” What is the “voice” but the Logos of God, who is also his Son? –
not as the poets and mythographers describe sons of gods begotten of sexual union,
but as the truth describes the Logos, always innate [ἐνδιάθετον] in the heart of God. . . .
He did not deprive himself of the Logos but generated the Logos and constantly
converses with his Logos.
And in making reference to John (1:1–3), Theophilus continues quite in the
Philonic vein, but the text may imply more than what he intended to say,
namely that the Logos is a pneumatic being:
Since the Logos is God and has derived his nature from God, whenever the Father
of the universe wills to do so he sends him into some place where he is present and
is heard and seen.91
Theophilus thus is ambiguous about Logos and Wisdom (Sophia) and the
Holy Spirit (Pneuma). But he defines his Triad as God the Father, Logos, and
Wisdom and considers these entities as powers rather than as individuals.92

 In Justin’s mind the event of the begetting of the Logos was linked with the
creation of the world (the begotten Logos was the instrument of creation), and
the event of the incarnation of the Logos was linked with the beginning of the
Christian people.
Justin is one of the first to develop a doctrine of the preexistent, begotten
Christ who is God, though he acknowledged that not all believers shared this
view:

For, my friends, there are some of our race who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, but claim that he has a merely human origin. I naturally disagree with such persons, nor would I agree with them even if the majority of those who share my opinions were to say so.94

 his, however, escaped the mentality of Justin, the authors of the Gospels, and
the ancient Hellenes, because they understood divine beings as constituted
of a divine substance, pneuma, therefore “physical.” Authors of the Gospels
would not have to assert that Mary was a virgin to avoid sexual connotation
in the generation of Jesus if they had the modern post-Cartesian concept of
“spirit” (modern pneuma). They believed, however, as well as Justin himself, 110
in the pneumatic God and in the real existence of the pneumatic Greek gods
and their modes of operation, and this is why we find a touch of uneasiness
in the description of the generation of Jesus in the Gospels. 

 pneuma of life (ζωτικὸν πνεῦμα). 

 Afterward, they will die (be annihilated), their
bodies will cease to exist, and their pneuma, the divine element in the human
soul, will return to its original source.169
There are also contradictory statements in which Justin claims that the
punishment of the souls of the wicked will be eternal, even in the eternal fire.
The demons will be punished in the eternal fire as well.

 Dialogue with Trypho V.
169 Ibid., VI

 The Son of God and the Spirit are the two substantive modes of divine manifestation in the
historical context, in the body of Christ in the external form and internally in the Spirit. 

 Platonist Numenius quite evidently exhibits an extraordinary affinity with the thinking of the second-century Christian Apologist Justin Martyr.

 For in another fragment Philo seems to make the Logos a source of
wisdom and illuminating power among humans, which later was described by
Numenius as the Third God and among Christians as the Holy Spirit

  In one form, the Hebrew Messiah figure was transformed into the cosmic Greek Logos of Numenius (fl. ca. 150) (his doctrine will be described in detail in Chapter 6) by Justin
Martyr (ca. 115–165) (Justin Martyr’s doctrine

 Philo’s biblical concept identifying the Logos as the source of Wisdom. Moreover, Wisdom is sent down to earth to illuminate and instruct those who seek it [her] (see Wis.
8:1–21; 10:1–21). Later, this function of Wisdom, distributed among humanity,
will be described by Numenius as the Third God, equivalent to the trinitarian
Holy Spirit.

 Once Philo identified the Logos with Wisdom, he ran into a grammatical
problem, for in the Greek language “wisdom” is feminine and “word” is
masculine. Philo solved the problem by indicating that, though Wisdom’s
name is feminine, her function and nature is masculine. Thus, he used the term
“logos” instead of “wisdom” (σοφία). For Philo, the Logos (Wisdom) was an
intermediary agency or God’s faculty between the transcendent creator and
the material world.

 second God (or Mind) of Numenius, and the First Power of the God of Philo.
Justin fused these various traditions of the Logos with the function ascribed
to the Son of God and the Holy Spirit (Pneuma) and thus equated the Greek
Logos with his concept of the cosmic Son of God, the Second Pneuma.

 Justin’s elaboration on the theme of the spermatic logos is also Numenius.4

 We can deduce that Justin assumed
that the soul, as created and living only by the will of God, cannot be a living
principle by itself; but, because it partakes of life, which, according to Justin is
God, by being provided with a part of the “regal mind,” which is also called the
spermatic Logos,159 it is a part of God’s substance, the “pneuma of life” (ζωτικόν
πνεῦμα), if we agree to use this technical Greek term. 

 The Logos Son is thus a pneumatic effluence from
God, which view is confirmed by Justin in his treatment of the spermatic
Logos. We learn that the First-begotten, the Son, is the Logos and a Spirit
(Pneuma) and the Power of God. More explicitly, and following Philo and
the Middle Platonists directly, Justin teaches us that the Son is also the Power
and the Logos,............

 This probably led to the expulsion of the Messianists from the synagogue and formation of
a Johannine community composed of Jewish Christians and Gentile converts subscribing
to the popular teachings of Philo. This resulted in assimilation of more Hellenistic ways
of describing the exalted Messiah and docetizing tendencies generally classified by the
scholars as Gnostic. During this stage the Gospel was written in its first redaction, and also
the Epistles of John were written. In the First Epistle, the author is concerned with the
faith of the believers and the numerical growth of the secessionists (1 Jn. 4:1–6; 2:22–25;
2 Jn. 7–10). In the next, third stage, to counteract these Gnostic tendencies within the
Christian community, the last redactor added a prologue (Jn. 1:1–5) and the additional
passages: John 1:6–18, chapter 6, John 11:1–46, John 12:9–11, chapters 15–17, and John
21:1–23. These additions add several new themes and emphasize the humanity of Jesus,
the real Son of God. The last, or fourth, stage represents dissolution of the community
when secessionists moved during the second century toward docetism, Gnosticism,
Cerinthianism. This would also explain, according to Brown, why the Fourth Gospel was
more frequently cited by the heterodox writers. Raymond E. Brown, The Community
of the Beloved Disciples: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New
Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1978).

Natural Law in Ireneus from Stoic Platonic philosophy

 Given the substantial familiarity with, and borrowing of, Stoic concepts of metaphysical natural law by the Christian intellectuals from the very beginning, it is highly dubious, in my mind, that a metaphysical natural law was not part of the presuppositions of the Apostolic Fathers, including St. Irenaeus. 

https://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-ireneaus-of-lyons-natural-law-in.html 

 "In his blend of love and truth, Ireneaus joined Paul and Plato. In his blend of love and natural law, he united Paul and the Stoics." Eric Osborn, Ireneaus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 11.2.2, p. 239.

 Irenaeus's treatment of the natural law is found in Book IV of his Adversus Haereses. Man, for St. Irenaeus, must be understood within the various stages of salvation history. "Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was formed after the likeness of God, and molded by His hands, that is by the Son and the Holy Spirit to whom also He said, 'Let Us make man.'" adv. haer., iv.pref.[4]. St. Irenaeus rejects outright any notion that would posit a strict dualism between flesh and spirit, and assign the creation of the flesh to someone other than God, some Demiurge that is less than, or separate from, God. Likewise, he rejects any notion that would begrudge to Jesus, at any moment of his post-incarnate existence, real fleshly existence.

 Benedict Guevin, O.S.B., "The Natural Law in Irenaeus of Lyon's Adversus Haereses: A Metaphysical or Soteriological Reality?, XXXVI Studia Patristica (Leuven: Peters 2001), 222-25,

 http://t4.stthom.edu/users/smith/portfolio/Irenaeus%20and%20Aquinas%20on%20Natural%20Law.pdf

 Irenaeus’s text to the laws which are “natural, noble, and common to all,” which Irenaeus identifies with “love God” and
“love your neighbor as yourself,” just as Thomas centuries later will refer to
them as “first and common” (prima et communia). 21 Note also Irenaeus’s re-
peated insistence that these “natural” laws have received their “growth and
completion” in Christ’s gift whereby we become adopted sons of the Father.
This freedom born of love is something Thomas would say is achieved with the
gift of the Holy Spirit in the New Law.

 By integrating the classical natural law tradition with the Jewish-Christian
account of the written Mosaic Law, Irenaeus bequeathed to future generations
a fertile intellectual heritage from which Thomas, in his own account of the law,
in the Summa would produce much fruit.

 

 

 

Early Church Fathers believed Christians will physically resurrect as incorruptible πνεύμα pnéuma immortal deathless bodies

 the dead shall be raised incorruptible,

OK so it's from Corinthians letter 

 resurrection is somatic, and that the soul and body will reunite for God's final judgment. 

 John writes in Revelation 20:14, 15 that death, hades and the unbelievers in the
Lord Jesus, will be cast into the lake of fire. Paul the apostle lends credence to this assertion
when he avers that “the last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (1Cor 15:26 NKJV). This death that will swallow up the first death ultimately is called by the Bible, second death (Rev. 20:14b)

 Those who die in Christ are promised resurrection at the second coming of Jesus. This the Bible calls, “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:6). It will be a time when what is presented symbolically in Ezekiel 37 concerning dry bones that came back to life, will be literally fulfilled by God. He will then recreate those that accepted Jesus as Lord while they lived on earth. 

It's strange that I've never heard a sermon preaching incorruptibility - why? I guess because it's in the Nicene Creed that is repeated every Sunday...Or Because it's impossible to believe? What about all the people who get cremated? So only the Jesus believers get to have a new physical body? It seems pretty harsh for someone who preached love as the truth of reality. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Niccolo-Polipo/publication/343195648_Vulnerability_and_incorruptibility_An_aretaic_model_of_the_transcendent_function/links/63825eb77b0e356feb884976/Vulnerability-and-incorruptibility-An-aretaic-model-of-the-transcendent-function.pdf 
Vulnerability and Incorruptibility: An Aretaic Model of the Transcendent Function 1
Niccolò Fiorentino Polipo

 Incorruptibility can also be phrased as a “loyalty to oneself” (Jung, 1916b, para. 498). It is a form of un-availability and it is well represented by the story of Saint Paraskevi of Rome, the virgin who refused to marry an emperor.

https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/02e4bb51-e766-4fda-9c50-3b992b6ff326/content

 Redefinition of Immortality of the Soul with Respect to the Resurrection of the Body
Erin M. Russo

 the foundational Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not reconcilable with the Platonic concept of the immortality of the soul; 

 it was a divisive issue among the Jews as early as the Second Temple Era – Pharisees and Sadducees differed in opinions on resurrection; Pharisees accepted it, while Sadducees did not (Setzer 21). 

 Jewish literature specifies that "The World of Resurrection is thus the ultimate reward…the wicked and unbelieving, however, are consigned to Genenna, a place of torment" (Parsons)

  the subtitle of Psalm 65 (66). The psalmist wrote, "for the end, a
song of a psalm of resurrection" (εἰς τὸ τέλος, ᾠδὴ ψαλμοῦ ἀναστάσεως; 65:1).4
However, despite the occurrence of the word ἀνάστασις, the Psalm is not eschatologically
minded. Instead, the writer praises the goodness and faithfulness of God in His works
towards humankind and vows to worship Him in word and deed. In this instance, it
seems that the word ἀνάστασις, which in later literature became the word for
resurrection, means a getting up from a seated position

 Since immortality is attributed to the Greeks and there are no references to it in the canonical Hebrew text, it is evident that information had spread and Jewish doctrines had developed during the centuries immediately preceding Christ. The earliest chapters of the Wisdom of Solomon are full of references to the Greek ideas of immortality (Goodspeed 177)

The

Wisdom of Solomon (or Book of Wisdom) is a 19-chapter deuterocanonical book written in Greek, traditionally attributed to King Solomon but likely composed in the 1st century BC. It is included in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bibles, as well as the Septuagint, but considered apocryphal by Protestants and Jews...The Catholic Church, after careful study and discernment, formally recognized these deuterocanonical books as part of the inspired Old Testament canon at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).

 The author of Wisdom claims that one should live on after death not through offspring, but through virtuous acts and beliefs; he specifically uses the word that denotes undyingness (ἀθανασία). Virtue was a concept widely discussed among the Greeks, and it modifies the previous Jewish tradition of children carrying on one's legacy. According to Wisdom 4:1 and 8:13, the memory of one's virtue, which among Greeks requires the cooperation of soul and body, yields one's immortality.

 This passage [in Wisdom] uses the term "incorruptibility" (ἀφθαρσία), which further emphasizes that right action (obedience to the laws), and subsequently an incorruptible soul

 The Maccabees are the first books to mention immortality and resurrection
together. 2 Maccabees references resurrection, and 4 Maccabees immortality (Skolnik
and Berenbaum "Afterlife," I.441-442; Nickelsburg 110). ...resurrection is God's answer to the brothers' murder…[in] Fourth Maccabees…the brothers are rewarded because they die for the Torah…it is a reward for obedience like the reward that the patriarchs
received for their righteousness (Nickelsburg 110-111)....It is unclear whether this resurrection concerns the soul, the body, or both, but the doctrine of resurrection is clearly in the earlier stages of development. 

 In 4 Maccabees, immortality is closely tied to Jewish belief and practice, especially in reference to martyrdom. The mother of the seven brothers is said to have urged them to die for their religion in exchange for immortality (14:5, 16:13).

 the Talmud (third order Ketubot) relate to the principles of marriage, but
also have implications for life after death. It was written, "The garment that went with a
person to the grave will come back with him…when the Messiah comes I shall be ready"
(Ketubot 12.34d.64-12.35a.14; 534-536). The first statement implies that a person's
clothing, which surrounds the body, will be useful to him in the future, thus suggesting
the existence of a belief in the resurrection of the body

 Moses Maimonides, a prominent Jewish theologian during the Middle Ages,
authored a "Treatise on Resurrection,"...While he did not live during pre-Christian
era, he frequently quotes the Torah, Mishnah, and other such literature. He frequently
affirms that the belief in the resurrection of the dead was widely held, calling it a "cardinal principle of the Torah" (V.27; 35), even if it was not explicitly confirmed....the potential reversibility of death (such as the Enoch narrative) was monumental for the Jews. He does agree that there are some "intimations of immortality," such as references to the depths of Sheol, which "are only that –intimations" (Levenson 30, 71, 98). However, Maimonides does state, adversely to the customary Judeo-Christian doctrine of resurrection, that the immortality of the soul (which earlier we established as an originally Greek concept) is "part of the natural course of events" (VII.36; 40)...However, he does not believe in the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body, per se, but in the future unification of body and soul into a quasi-incorporeal form 

 ............

  immortality, closely associated with eternal reward, and resurrection, associated with God's judgment, are somewhat juxtaposed and reappropriated in the Apocrypha, 

  After the resurrection of Christ, many also began to view immortality in a new way, borrowing similar vocabulary from pagan literature (primarily Platonism), yet superimposing the knowledge of the resurrection; hence the need for a redefinition of Christian immortality of the soul with respect to the resurrection of the body.

 ...............

 Paul clearly borrows vocabulary to create a new understanding of Christian immortality – ἀφθαρσία, the incorruptibility of resurrected bodies to decay, is not innate as Plato suggests, but is something at which one aims on a spiritual journey. Immortality is tied to salvation and eternal life, which turn is tied to the Resurrection.

 ἀφθαρσία Aphtharsia [incorruptible] is Used seven times by Paul in the New Testament to describe the coming glory of the resurrection and the nature of heavenly bodies. aphtharsía

 imperishable body (one that will not decay). Immortality is this sense is not a faculty of
the soul, but is a property of a body resurrected unto Christ. This is further confirmed in
verse fifty, which ties salvation to resurrection. What is mortal and corruptible (τὸ
θνητὸν, τὸ φθαρτὸν) cannot inherit what is immortal (ἀφθαρσία).6 Thus the belief in
Christ and his resurrection, a necessity for salvation, is tied to immortality. In a sense,
Paul seems to chiastically [ words, or grammatical constructions are repeated or mirrored in reverse order] enumerate doctrines of the immortality of the body and the
resurrection of the soul; 

 This language of putting on (ἐνδύσηται), or clothing oneself,
reflects conscious thought and action – immortality of the soul is not innate, as Plato
argued. 8 To achieve immortality, as a Christian idea closely tied with but not identical to resurrection, one must choose to follow Christ; only then can one receive an incorruptible body after death. Salvation relies on Christ's resurrection, belief in which, for Christians,
also connotes immortality – although it is in reference to the body instead of the soul....

 Matthew records, "and tombs were opened and many bodies of saints who had fallen asleep were resurrected, and having come out from the tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and they were shown to many" (καὶ τὰ μνημεῖα ἀνεῴχθησαν καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν, καὶ ἐξελθόντες εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν καὶ ἐνεφανίσθησαν πολλοῖς; Mt. 27:52-53). This passage describes the events that occurred at the moment Jesus died, including the earthquake, the torn temple partition, and the resurrection of the saint...The language
of falling asleep, which becomes synonymous with death for believers, is similar to that
which was seen in Psalms – "you know my sitting down and my rising up" (σὺ ἔγνως τὴν
καθὲδραν μου, καὶ τὴν ἒγερσιν μου; 138:2). In this case, resurrection is a physical act
similar to getting up from seated or sleeping, and is the first suggestion of somatic resurrection in Scripture – they appeared to many in Jerusalem.......

 The remaining word for resurrection, ἀνάστασις, appears roughly forty times in
the New Testament;

 In this account, the resurrection of the body
entails being worthy (καταξιωθέντες), although the requirements for this are not listed. It
does state, however, that those who are sons of God (which believers are; cf. the Lord's
Prayer – "our Father") shall not die and are equal to the angels. Not dying is analogous to
the concept of immortality; ἀθανασία in fact means "undyingness." However, as we saw
in our examination of ἀθανασία, that this seems to refer only to the body, not the soul,
which is characteristic of Platonic immortality...

 Luke seems to conflate the resurrection of the body, a doctrine previously
well-attested to in both the Old Testament, intertestamental literature, and the Gospels,
with immortality using a borrowed vocabulary – showing a willingness to adapt the
language from the original Platonic concept of immortality in order to describe
resurrection; unfortunately, this reappropriation encouraged later writers to wrongly
conflate immortality and resurrection

 resurrection requires death first, unlike immortality (one aspect of which is deathlessness), which allows man to not die.

 By tying ἀθανασία to Christ, immortality is
connected to Jesus' resurrection, which Jaeger affirms is the foundation of Christianity
(although he also considers Greek immortality to be fundamental; Stendahl 97). Cullman
accurately states that “immortality is bound up in the Christ event; the soul is not intrinsically immortal, but it becomes so only in the belief in Christ's resurrection

 first one believes in the resurrection, then one is resurrected to judgment or eternal life, after which the righteous are granted immortality ("Immortality")....

 Ignatius writes in his epistle to the Ephesians, “...breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote in order to not die but to live in Jesus Christ forever”

 Clement to Corinthians...

 immortality clearly has a fleshly consequence. In this same letter,
Clement further connects immortality with the flesh. The one who competes well in this
life will be granted immortality and freedom from the flesh in the next life. 19 He declares, “This same flesh is able to receive such great life and immortality, with the Holy Spirit being joined fast with it,  ...flesh (σάρξ is often different from σῶμα) can receive immortality when it is joined with the Holy Spirit.

 the body (σῶμα) will be refreshed and reunited with the immortal soul at the
eschaton....Ignatius also uses ἀφθαρσία four times in his seven genuine letters. First, he
emphasizes incorruptibility as a gift of God, brought about by His power alone. He
remarks, “For this reason the Lord received ointment upon his head, so that he might breathe incorruptibility on the church....

 

Early Church Fathers: Yes,

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–110 AD) wrote his letters earlier than Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD). 1) Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters around 110–117 AD, while 2) 2nd Clement is a sermon generally dated to a later period, roughly 120–140 AD......3) Polycarp of Smyrna lived until about AD 155, writing his famous letter to the Philippians shortly after Ignatius's death....4) St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202) came after 5) Justin Martyr (c. 100–165), operating as a second-generation apologist and theologian who was likely a student of Justin in Rome....6) Tertullian (c. 155–c. 220 AD) was a prominent early Christian theologian, apologist, and Latin author who lived and worked in Carthage, North Africa...7) Athenagoras authored his A Plea for the Christians (or Embassy) around 177 AD

 Polycarp himself, in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, believed that immortality was a
gift to the righteous by the power of God. The unknown author writes, “...so that I might
receive a share in the number of the martyrs in the cup of your Christ, unto the
resurrection of eternal life, of the soul and body, in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit”

I t is interesting that Ignatius uses πνευματικός, since that word
is used to describe the resurrected body, which is although fully body, has been re-ensouled (πνεύμα; 

pnévma

Bromiley "Resurrection," IV.145-150). 24 It is also noteworthy that he
clarifies that the body and soul are not separate – the soul, although spiritually united
with God, does not desert the living body;

 there was little to no reference to the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body in relation to each other in order to form an explicit, developed Christian idea of immortality and resurrection (devoid of pagan ties) – the two theories collide in the writings of the Church Fathers

 requires a new definition of the Christian immortality-resurrection hybrid that develops
from the Apostolic age to the Patristic age...The Apostolic Fathers kept the two separate, preserving the integrity and irreconcilability of the two; however, we still lack a developed, uniform understanding of the relationship between the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead....

 The bodies of the bad will also be rendered immortal, in order to endure the eternity of suffering to which they are destined" (76-77). In his First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr...The
incorruptibility that accompanies immortality, then, is not an innate quality, but is
acquired through belief [in Jesus Christ].... the bodies that are clothed with incorruption

 The soul of the believer leaves the body after death, yet the body is raised in incorruption instead of the soul. 5 Yet, is the incorruption manifested in the soul, since body and soul are
reunited for the Last Judgment? This remains to be seen

 part of the immortality of the soul involves its absence from the body, something that is irreconcilable with the Christian doctrine of psychosomatic resurrection. Hence, since neither ἀθάνατος nor ἀσώματος as components of the immortality of the soul are compatible with the Christian doctrines of resurrection and Justin's earlier defense of acquired incorruptibility, the Platonic concept of immortality does not complement the doctrine of the resurrection of the body....immortality belongs to all, but incorruptibility is granted only to those worthy to dwell with God.12

 Justin then begins to relate incorruptibility not to immortality, but to resurrection.

 he describes our resurrected selves as "καὶ ἀφθάρτους καὶ
ἀθανάτους" – both incorruptible and deathless (Tryph. 46.7). Originally terms limited to the discussion of immortality, now Justin has suggested that the two tenets of immortality are in fact characteristics of the resurrection of the body – a reappropriation of terms. He does this later on his is Dialogue, claiming that, "…when he raises all of us up, and makes some incorruptible, immortal, and free from pain in an everlasting and indissoluble kingdom, and banishes others into the eternal torment of fire" (Slusser 175, Tryph. 117.3).

 Irenaeus has allocated the terms usually reserved for Platonic immortality to indicate psychosomatic resurrection. This further emphasizes the idea that
the benefits of immortality for Christians is achieved through faith, rather than being an
innate quality. The resurrection of the body and the gift of incorruptibility is a testament
to the power of God; as Creator of originally immortal and incorruptible things..."the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our mortal flesh" (Against Heresies)

 The use of incorruption as an intermediary term for qualities of immortality
and resurrection is the greatest demonstration of this perspective.

 Notably, incorruptibility, ἀφθαρσία, appears in this text as "incorruption" – a change translators seem to have made (albeit unintentionally) after the disappearance of Platonic immortality in religious discourses (Irenaeus also displays this). At this point, resurrection seems to have swallowed immortality – inheriting some of its functions but leaving others obscure. This very obscurity and theological dominance shows that the Church Fathers recognized the irreconcilability of Platonic immortality with psychosomatic resurrection; however, they fail to enumerate the Christian concept of immortality, instead falling prey to a conflation of terms.

 [According to Athenagoras] Therefore, the soul is not innately incorruptible, yet the body is; all shall rise in new bodies either to eternal joy or eternal misery, contrary to Platonic thought that only the soul could achieve incorruptibility....The Greek word used is ἀθανάτου, which means "deathless" – not to be
confused with the immortality association with incorruption (ἀφθαρσία)...Athenagoras seems to conflate immortality and resurrection, ...the soul, while still attached to the definitions of Platonism, is indiscriminately used between incorruption and deathlessness – a detriment to theological and doctrinal clarity. In all of this one thing remains certain: the Christian doctrine of psychosomatic resurrection is not compatible with Plato's definition of an immortal soul....

 For Tertullian...

Not only was Christ the unification of God and man, but as a man he was the
perfect, incorruptible human that God originally created Adam to be. 

 Tertullian seems to suggest that the soul cannot in fact realize its full potential without the body. In keeping with the earlier writers, every soul is indivisible, yet only the Christian person possesses the incorruptibility associated with immortality; the incorruptibility applies to the whole person: the reunified body and soul at the final resurrection.... the soul is not born Christian, and thus is not born incorruptible....

  The Latin immortalis does not preserve one specific Greek meaning between ἀφθαρσία and ἀθανασία; rather, it is translated as "immortality" – with the reader left in doubt whether immortalis means "deathless" or "incorruptible." I have chosen to read immortalis as "deathless," since it has the negative prefix in front of mors, or death... "nothing everlasting until after the resurrection"...a quasi-conglomeration of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body..., "have to clothe themselves with that principle of incorruptibility and immortality"

 early Church Fathers reappropriated certain facets of Platonic
immortality to psychosomatic resurrection. However, writers such as Tertullian began to
dissect the essence of each facet – which distracts from the unification Christians
supposedly value – the unity of the Trinity, the unity of body and soul, and the unity of
Christ and the believer. Towards the end of his On the Resurrection of the Flesh,
Tertullian does seem to relate body and soul in a more unifying way, which refocuses the
reader toward the unification with God that is the last judgment and resurrection. 30 To
once again highlight their unification, he states, "…Adam the author of death, Christ the
author of the resurrection, and yet, by bringing together the authors under the name of
'man', to determine that the resurrection is of the same substance as the death was" (De
Res. Carn. 48, Evans 139)

 Justin Martyr argued that incorruptibility, still a tenet of the Platonic concept of the immortality of the soul, was acquired only through belief in the Gospel – incorruptibility, then, was not innate as Plato suggested but was a result of being reborn in Christ.

 By the time of Augustine, the soul was merely a component of psychosomatic resurrection, with few vestigial hints of Platonic immortality....Because immortality and resurrection were both prevalent theories regarding the afterlife
in the Mediterranean region, people were aware of both but did not often fully understand
them – this led to a lot of confusion which still exists today, as well as an "undefinition," per se, of the terms used to describe immortality. Ἀφθαρσία [Incorruptible] and ἀθανασία [Deathlessness] become sprinkled throughout early Christian literature, showing an awareness of the Platonic concept, yet they refer to the Christian idea of immortality stated above. These errors multiply throughout the ages, eventually resulting in the most common misunderstanding
that resurrection and immortality are equivalent concepts in biblical literature. Another
phrase, "eternal life," does not suffice either, because it reflects a length of time that a
believer shall experience after the final resurrection and the incorruptibility of the
resurrected body (given by God). Since resurrection and immortality are prerequisites of
eternal life, it is insufficient (and rather vague) as a descriptive term.

 Anima is equivalent to ψυχή, often translated as "soul" and "life," but also is closely
tied with πνεύμα, "breath" and "spirit"; memory is a function of the soul; see Aquinas' De
Anima and previous chapters. The soul is also often tied to blood, so the commingling of
bread and wine shows the reunification of body and sou

The mention of the memory of souls [in Mass] (pro animabus illis quarum hodie memoriam) also hearkens back to the Jewish idea of immortality – one is made immortal by the memorials observed by family....[soul is often translated as person]

 undead are powered by negative energy and are typically evil, whereas deathless are powered by positive energy,...The Greek Orthodox Church adds a third component, spirit, saying that a tripartite unity of spirit, soul, and body most accurately describes the capabilities of human existence and avoids confusion between soul and spirit (which is often considered a faculty of the soul; Kallistos 60-61). Spidlik calls spirit "the presence of an invisible Breath pnéuma in the human soul

 the Speculum Humanae Salvationis manuscript, written by an Austrian monk in
the 14th century....the body of Jesus during and after the resurrection – it can pass through rock ...

 The traditional emphasis on the moment of death, which is of little consequence to the
New Testament writers, has most successfully dissipated that intensity of
expectation, so that the Christian view of the future is all but unknown in
many church circles. Finally, there will be no need to bend isolated verses
of the New Testament to make them conform to a non-biblical tradition.
If it be granted that the simple scheme of “sleep” followed by
“awakening” in resurrection, as described above, most satisfactorily
accounts for the biblical data (as well as being supported by the evidence
of early church history), it is fair to ask why Philippians 1:23, taken alone,
appears to lend some support to the notion of an immediate presence with
Christ. The problem is easily solved, if it is understood that for those who
fall asleep in death, the passage of time is of no consequence whatever.... when the last trumpet sounds, the body is resurrected and rejoined with the soul

 https://www.focusonthekingdom.org/Life%20After%20Death.pdf

Dominus Mortis: Martin Luther on the Incorruptibility of God in Christ. By David J.Luy. Pp. x, 266, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2014, $25.99.

The Heythrop Journal,  2017

 Luther insisted that it is only because the divine nature of Christ cannot suffer or die that he has something to ‘offer us’ above other people in the work of salvation. Without his nature free from suffering and death, he would be like a lifeguard approaching a drowning swimmer who would be pulled down into the depths by the individual he is trying to save, rather than grabbing him and the two bobbing together up to the surface and new life. Luther in fact returns to the traditional formula of the Greek theologians....

just and sin at the same time...‘suffering of God in Christ’ is revealed here as more a style 

than a substance, a muscular and melodramatic appearance of
busyness and practical improvement impatient with
other-worldly, contemplative ruminations leading to
‘quietistic’ union.

 The unique, essential nature of Christianity is found in the concept of divine love, agape, and this concept is found most purely in Paul (earliest Christianity) and in
Luther (reformation). Nygren’s juxtaposition of “earliest Christianity and
reformation” is clearly visible in his study of Christian love. And in this
scheme of synthesis and reformation, Irenaeus was the one theologian
between the two giants of Paul and Luther who came closest to getting
things right,....

 in attempting to summarize this agape motif in Irenaeus, Nygren gives
a quite adequate presentation of central aspects of Irenaeus’s theology,
focusing on three primary doctrines: 1) God the creator; 2) the Incarna-
tion; and 3) the resurrection of the flesh. I do not find much to criticize
in Nygren’s presentation of these central doctrines in Irenaeus. Nygren
has clearly read Irenaeus and read him well. And yet the word love isn’t
actually very prominent in Nygren’s discussion of Irenaeus. I find this
odd, given the fact that Irenaeus is so important for Nygren precisely as
a representative of true Christian love. Nygren wishes to make Irenaeus
a primary representative of the agape motif, but the number of passages
in Irenaeus where love is central is not great.

 this eros infiltration is simply the Hellenistic idea of deifi-
cation, which he claims has been adopted by Irenaeus and woven into
his agape religion. Nygren summarizes this with a phrase that Irenaeus
in fact never uses: “God became man in order that man might become
God” (Nygren, 1953, p. 410). Irenaeus does say similar things, speaking of
humans becoming like God, of communion with God, of participating
in God, but to simply equate these expressions with some pre-conceived
Hellenistic doctrine of deification is a drastic oversimplification. 

 Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople ( c. 580 – 13 August 662), was a Christian monk, theologian, and scholar.

 The Logos is present in the act of creation, in the world order, and as the agent of salvation

 Maximus, Ambiguum 7 and 41.

 the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.” It would seem quite strange to argue that these “fruit[s] of the Spirit” have nothing to do with any spiritual development or maturity of the believer,

 Luther's reconfigured Christology overcomes the latent docetism of patristic and medieval christianity

 the doctrine of divine impassibility...The word “impassible” comes from the Latin for suffering (passio). Consequently, divine impassibility would be that essence of God that cannot suffer. Again we experience a chasm of language between the classical world and ours. We have already run into the idea that God must have the origin of “motion in himself,” yet he himself cannot be subject to motion. Since it had already been established that God is the Prime Mover....

 https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=dissertations_mu

 the consolation it provides, however, is not that the divinity of Christ tastes human vulnerability, and thus joins us in our helplessness. It is rather that, by participation in Christ through faith, the believer shares in the deathless might, which is manifest in the Son‟s glorious resurrection.

 

 

Quietism is a 17th-century Christian mystical movement, primarily associated with Spanish priest Miguel de Molinos, that was condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church

(notably by Pope Innocent XI in 1687). It taught that spiritual perfection is achieved through total passivity, inward quiet, and the annihilation of the will....  why Quietism was declared heretical

 https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/quietism

The medieval Hesychasts believed that a perfect contemplation of God was possible through repose of the body and stilling of the will. The Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit (thirteenth through fifteenth centuries) and the Alumbrados of Spain (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) took this idea further, to the point where not only external worship and discursive prayer are useless, but obedience to moral law and personal mortification become unnecessary; the soul being mystically united to God, the body’s every desire can be indulged without incurring sin.

These movements helped set the stage for Miguel de Molinos, who crystallized Quietism into its most recognizable form. The first proposition of his work, Dux Spiritualis, sums up the heresy: “Man must annihilate his powers and this is the inward way [via interna]; in fact, the desire to do anything actively is offensive to God and hence one must abandon oneself entirely to God and therefore remain as a lifeless body.”

 Like Quietism, many Eastern religions (Hinduism and Buddhism, for instance) aim at a state of detachment or indifference, whether it be Nirvana for the Buddhists, tranquil oneness with the pantheistic “all-god,” or the Tao.