874. If it were not a future physical existence that the world redeemer was alluding to, why the term "righteousness"? Could there ever exist any form of "injustice" in "heaven"? If its inhabitants, the "angels", are spirits serving those who shall be the heirs of salvation, how can they possibly be "bandits", filled with "injustice" or "sin"? Is it in order to create perfection in "heaven" that the world redeemer came to Earth? As all the very greatest sages in the world tirelessly promote and stimulate neighbourly love everywhere, no matter where they are and whatever they are occupied with, is it not in order to transform terrestrial human beings' physical existence so that it is like that of the "angels in heaven"? Does it not state in the Lord's Prayer: "Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven"? Is not its precise purpose to introduce the condition of the "angels" and "heaven" to the Earth or the physical plane? And is it not this introduction or the growth of this work that Jesus expresses as a "mustard seed" that eventually becomes a great, mighty tree? And was not this tree the "kingdom of heaven"? Does not the world redeemer confirm here, through this divine parable, that this kingdom can come about only through growth? What can this growth be other than training and the gathering of experience? And what would be the use of the sages' moral teaching and guidance if it were not intended to be combined with the individual's state of gathering practical experience? Is not what we call "evolution" the growth in the individual's mentality that is manifested through the state of his experience? Is it not this steady depositing of moral knowledge and humanity in the consciousness as a result of the individual's evolution that Jesus called the "kingdom of heaven"?
      It is not surprising that Christ, in connection with the perfecting of this kingdom, had to refer to being "born anew" and to the encounter with the "Helper, the Holy Spirit" that will take place at a later time. And it is not surprising that he distinguishes between "heaven" and the "resurrection", and points out that these two realities are two different kingdoms or forms of life. He clearly accepted that "heaven" was that particular, necessary state that every individual must be in when their physical body, either because of old age or injury, can no longer be used as a tool for the being's physical manifestation, so that, through the process we call "death", the physical body separates from the I and its superconsciousness. Christ fully realised that the individual remains in this state until its I is able, by using its superconsciousness, its fate element and its talent kernels, to create for itself a new physical body. What does it mean when at one point he says to his listeners: "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living'". And the Bible goes on to report: "And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine". What was it in Jesus' teaching that the multitude was astonished about? Was it not his reference to the "resurrection of the dead"? Did not the listeners actually believe that beings had to remain in the non-physical or spiritual state that they were incorporated into at death? And does not authorised Christianity the world over even today believe precisely this? Is it not usual today, just as it was in those days, to refer to all those, who have passed over into this state, as the "dead"? Is it not for everyone an unshakable fact that these people are "dead", that is to say, they have left their physical form of existence? Is it not on this very point that existence is, to the uninitiated, shrouded in mystery? Do not all the strands of life join up here and become the greatest riddle in existence? Is not the great question: "Is there life after death?" the same today as it was in Jesus' time? On this point are not human beings still tormented by the doubts and darkness of ignorance?
      Today, just as in the past, there are two realities that the doubters cannot get away from, namely, the "living" and the "dead", and the latter are considered to be beings that have completely ceased to exist. Would it not be to such doubters that the world redeemer drew attention to the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was not a God of the dead but of the living? In saying this, is he not pointing out that there exists no being whatsoever that is, in the absolute sense of the word, "dead"? Everything is alive. If it were not so, this godhead would then also be a godhead of something "dead". The so-called "dead" are in reality "living". But even though the Bible gives only rare snatches of enlightenment on this subject, these are still sufficient for us to see the world redeemer's entire attitude towards and knowledge of the issue. We can see that he is clearly aware that the beings will not continue to be in the state described by the "living", that is to say physical beings, as the "dead" or "in heaven", but will return to a state where they will again be described as "living", that is "physical". It is this state of coming back that Jesus expresses as the "resurrection". What else could it be? If the beings were to remain in the non-physical or spiritual existence no "resurrection" would be able to manifest. "Resurrection" or "to rise from the dead" would thus have no foundation whatsoever. When one is in "heaven" one does not need a "resurrection" in order to enter it. When Jesus reminds the multitudes of the "resurrection", he is making the same point that he made to Nicodemus, namely that of being "born anew" and of returning to a new "physical existence". It is therefore hardly surprising that the multitudes were "astonished at his teaching", just as the learned Nicodemus had been.