Swordmaster - Giving some consideration to your #114 comment....
You pulled up two passages to prove your position; namely Luke 20:34-35 and Philippians 3:8-11, both of which use the word "attain" (or "obtain") with regard to the resurrection from among the dead. I'm not the Greek language pro, but a look into the use of ATTAIN (katantao) means "to come opposite to, to reach, to arrive at" (in process of time). Nowhere does it give the implication of earning the right to something, as in working hard enough to merit an award. It has more of the idea of a time clock ticking down until its alarm goes off.
The definition of "arriving at" a certain point in the process of time fits quite well in both passages you brought up. The context in the Luke 20:34-35 verses about the woman married to 7 brothers is talking about TWO AGES - "this age" (the Old Covenant age) and "that age" (the New Covenant age). The New Covenant age would have a physical resurrection from among the dead attached to it, according to Christ. Those who were accounted worthy in "this age" of the Old Covenant would arrive at the resurrection from the dead in "that age" of the New Covenant that followed. We cannot presume from the context that they are esteemed worthy because of something THEY HAVE DONE. It could just as well be that they are esteemed worthy because of something that was done TO THEM or FOR THEM (as in Jesus imputing righteousness on their behalf).
The same definition of "attaining", or arriving in the process of time applies to Paul's statement in Philippians 3:11 (Interlinear), "...If by any means I may arrive at the resurrection of the dead." Paul was hoping to be conformed to Christ's death (to become physically dead himself), so that he could know and experience the power of that resurrection of the New Covenant age when it happened. He was, (martyred in AD 67), and he did, ( become resurrected at Pentecost in AD 70 to be exact).
I find it rather odd that you are pulling up Paul's Philippians 3:8-11 passage to prove your position when Paul is most emphatically stressing that he places absolutely "no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). His entire biographical list of credentials and achievements he slaps with a derisive label - calling it all "dung" (v.8) - "Not having mine own righteousness", but that of Christ's imputed to him by faith (v.9). After Paul uses all this humbling language denigrating his personal accomplishments, it would be contrary to the entire context for him to do a complete 180 degree turnaround in the very next verses by talking about what he had done to earn the resurrection to eternal life. That wouldn't match the context at all.
It's possible to discuss differences in word definitions all day long and never come to an agreement, I suppose. I believe that is why Jesus tended to use stories, types, and metaphors to illustrate many of the points He was making. A picture is worth a thousand words, and does not change when translated into any language. This is why I initially brought up the John 4:14 illustration He gave to the Samaritan woman. The fountain of living water implanted within each one who drinks of Christ, the origin of living water, is a picture with a potent message that needs no lengthy discussion to understand it. A child of God cannot get rid of the implanted spring within. You cannot walk away from it, because it goes wherever you do. It is an unending source of life, because it originates from the Maker of all life, not the recipient of it.