Jesus Christ is the resurrection and those who LIVE and believe SHALL NEVER DIE, because they have already PASSED from death unto life; they are already seated with Christ in heavenly places.
The author of a new book called The Lazarus Life (amazon.com/Lazarus-Life-Spir … 1434799956), Stephen Smith, preached at our church yesterday. I haven’t purchased or read the book yet, but he delivered a pretty powerful message (I didn’t agree with everything, but he made some good points). And as you may have guessed from the title of his book, he frequently mentioned the verse to which you referred in your last post. How do you understand Jesus’ declaration, “I am the resurrection and the life?”
Oops, seems you posted while I was still composing my post! 
But if there’s anything more you’d like to elaborate on regarding this verse, please do. 
I have not read what you have linked (very little time right now) but I have read what you have written before. And, as I stated before, I don’t understand how it is you see the penalty for sin a spiritual death, yet still maintain that the resurrection of the dead is supposed to be applied naturally, rather than spiritually.
Paul speaks of both deaths in this chapter.
I stil maintain that it has nothing to do with the physically dead. 
I believe that it does refer to the person in a holistic sense. A “soul” (nephesh) is “a breathing creature”; it is a living being. We “are” souls; we do not “have” souls. And “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” is not referring to physical death but the death that one suffers due to sin, while he is physically alive. So, then, “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” is not referring to physical death either. And it is “the dead” who are in need of “the resurrection of the dead”, is it not? And “the resurrection” IS JESUS CHRIST. No?
So then how are the dead raised up and with what body do they come?
Paul answered that question with “thou fool”. Why? It seems to me because it is to ask the question after a carnal (rather than a spiritual) understanding of who the dead are and how they are raised. How hard is it to understand “the resurrection of the dead” after a carnal truth, to see it only in relation to physical death?
We are told that it is not about being UNCLOTHED but about being CLOTHED UPON and having been clothed (with Christ) we know that if this earthly tabernacle were dissolved that WE HAVE an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Jesus Christ IS THE RESURRECTION. 
Look at His words to Martha at the resurrection of Lazarus. Martha knew that she would see her brother again. When? She said “in the resurrection at the last day”. What was Jesus’ response to that?
He said “I AM the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Then He called Lazarus out of the grave and loosed him from the bonds of death. Now take what was seen physically and apply it spiritually to “the body of this death” that Paul so desired to be redeemed from and what do you see?
If you see that the “death” that we suffered due to sin was not physical and know that if one died for all then were all dead and that we have all been baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, such that we shall also know the power of His resurrection (which is what Paul said we are to be striving to “know”), then can you not see that “the graves” that we are redeemed from are not physical graves? That those who “sleep in the dust” are not physically dead? That even those “in Hades” are not physically dead?
One is made “a living soul” (is “resurrected from the dead”) when God breaths “the breath of life” (His spirit) into them, making this “dead" soul (nephesh = “a breathing creature”) a “living" (chay) soul (nephesh) wherein death is swallowed up of life. No?
Sorry, I can’t look up the scriptures right now to address them.
I will have to come back to that later if you need me to. 
I’m at work and don’t have the time to go look up all of those verse. But I am not assuming what you think I am.
I know some who believe that our physical bodies will be resurrected in order to be changed (made perfect/immortal) whether they believe in soul sleep or not; as such, I guess, that those who don’t believe in soul sleep believe that we do exist as “disembodied spirits” until our “physical resurrection” takes place and we “get our bodies back”.
I also know some who believe that it is only “the soul” (which “sleeps” insheol/hades until the time of the resurrection) that is redeemed from the grave and that, at the time, God gives it a new body.
I don’t believe either (though I have, in the past, believed both). That changes when I realized who “the dead” are and what (who) “the resurrection of the dead” is.
I’ll check that out and I did touch on “I am the resurrection and the life” in my other post. Not sure if you’ve read it yet. I can add more and I would also like to explain how I see it in relation to Christ’s words to the Sadducees as well, if you would be interested.
I have to run for now since I am at work. But I will try to check back later and add more. If not before I leave then when I get home this evening.
So what you’re saying now is that there is no resurrection other than people kinda dribbling in one at a time - in other words, an ongoing process but not an event. THE last day then becomes YOUR last day.
But Christ always talked about THE resurrection occurring on THE last day.
‘They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.’ 2Tim 2
Perhaps this will help you understand my position better: I believe that sometimes the word “death” is being employed figuratively, and other times it’s being employed literally. The context determines which is which.
While I certainly believe there are “figurative” resurrections described in Scripture (e.g., Ezek 37; Dan 12:2; John 5:25-29; Rom 6:5; 8:11; Eph 2:4-5; 5:14; Phil 3:10-11; Rev 20:4-6; etc.), I think it’s sloppy exegesis to “spiritualize” every reference to the resurrection when the context makes it abundantly clear that the resurrection in view is of the same, literal nature as the one Christ experienced after 3 days in the tomb (e.g., Matt 22:23-32; Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-38; Acts 4:2; 13:22-23, 28-37; 17:18, 32; 24: 15; 26:23; Rom 1:4; 8:20-25; 10:9; 14:9; 1Cor 6:13-14; 15:3-57; 2Cor 1:8-9; 4:13-14; 5:1-9; Eph 1:20; Phil 3:20-21; 1Thess 4:13-18; 2Tim 1:10; Heb 5:7; 7:15-16; 11:35; 1Pet 1:3-4; 3:21; 1John 3:2-3; etc.). Certainly we can derive figurative, spiritual meaning from Christ’s death and resurrection, but the fact remains that it was and always will be a literal resurrection. And the fact that Christ is said to be the “firstfruits of those who sleep” (1 Cor 15:20-23) at the very least means that the resurrection of “those who sleep” (i.e., those who are dead) will be like Christ’s.
Moreover, just because physical death is natural and was not introduced into the world as a result of sin doesn’t mean it’s not something from which we need to be saved. If the “death” from which Christ was raised on the third day is the same “death” that Paul says is the “last enemy” in 1 Cor 15:26, and the same “death” that is going to be “swallowed up in victory” when the “last trumpet” sounds (and I see nothing in the context that indicates otherwise), then literal death, even though not a consequence of sin, is still an enemy that needs to be “destroyed.”
I only ask for proof of this.
I’m not sure why, though. Did Christ’s resurrection have nothing to do with him being physically dead? 
Agreed! 
Whoa, let’s stop right there. The “death” in view in Ezekiel 18 is referring to physical death - i.e., a premature death. That is, the punishment that would be brought upon the guilty (for we are told “his blood shall be upon himself”) consisted of having one’s life cut short by God. In Eze 18:14, the literal rendering would be, “He shall be put to death.” In v. 27, those who “do what is right” are said to “preserve their life.” What life? Answer: their natural life.
Now, it is true that this general principle of being put to death because of sin is then applied to the “house of Israel” as a whole, making “death” a figure for national ruin (Eze 18:30-32; 37:1ff). But until then, it simply conveys the idea of a premature physical death for individuals (at least, for Israelites living under the Old Covenant).
Jesus “is” the resurrection only in a figurative sense, AHF. Not literally. The literal resurrection is an instantaneous event in which all who have died will be raised with the same kind of immortal body with which Christ was raised on the third day.
What you understand to be the “spiritual” meaning of the resurrection is, I believe, entirely foreign to the context of 1Cor 15, which so closely identifies the nature of the resurrection of mankind in general with that of Christ’s own resurrection as to make it virtually impossible to mistake what Paul’s talking about (that is, unless one is already convinced that the idea of a literal resurrection that is like Christ’s own resurrection is inherently “carnal” 
).
Where in 2Cor 5 does Paul say that our being “clothed” after the destruction of our body means being “clothed with Christ?” And does this happen at each person’s death? I don’t think so; Paul says we are “clothed” with our “building from God” when “what is mortal” is “swallowed up by life.” And when is this? Answer: at the “last trumpet,” when “the perishable (the dead) puts on the imperishable and the mortal (those who are still alive at this time) puts on immortality” (1 Cor 15:50-54).
You’re confusing spiritual death and life with the literal resurrection of the dead, of which Christ is the firstfruits. In John 11 Jesus is affirming that he is not only the one who is going to raise the dead on the “last day” (John 6:39ff) (which is what it means for him to be “the resurrection”) he is also the one who gives “spiritual life” to those who are “dead in their sins” so that people may be “spiritually alive” for as long as they’re believing on him (which is what it means for him to be “the life”). But the fact that Christ is the source of “spiritual life” for all who believe does not negate the fact that he is also going to raise the dead at a yet-future time, and thereby abolish mankind’s “last enemy.”
I never said I believed that the literal resurrection of the dead has anything to do with literal graves. If you’re referring to John 5, I believe this resurrection is figurative, like that described in Ezekiel 37 and Dan 12. And yes, those in “Hades” are physically dead, for Hades is nothing more than the state of the dead. I think you’re oversimplifying Biblical concepts. Not all “death” and “resurrection” language is to be understood literally, but neither is it all to be understood figuratively. But you’re lumping it all together and, as a result, are unable to see how someone (such as myself) can possibly believe that all will be literally raised just like Christ was literally raised.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. When God breathed into Adam and made him a “living soul,” Adam was not thereby raised from the dead. One cannot die who has not yet lived. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here.
Again, Christ is not literally “the resurrection” any more than he is literally “the door of the sheep” (John 10:7). But just for fun, try replacing the expression “the resurrection of the dead” (or similar expressions) with “Jesus Christ” every time such expressions appear in Scripture, and let me know how that works out for ya.
Ran, I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am, atHisfeet! ), but judging from what I’ve read on her blog (mychurch.org/blog/205937/How … -they-come), I think she believes that “the resurrection of the dead” refers to the believer’s attaining to full spiritual maturity - i.e., when “Christ is formed in [us].” Maybe she thinks this happens to everyone after death; I’m not sure. But she doesn’t seem to believe that the resurrection of the dead has anything to do with physical death. A very interesting view, to say the least!
I had this verse in mind as well.
Well, people tend to spiritualize death to death. But dead is dead. And being separated from your body is death - real death - Christ was dead and if He had not re-united with His resurrected body, He (the Person, Christ) would still be dead.
Now, being a Trinitarian, I do think that Christ the God/man’s death was a little different - being God, He didn’t sleep, He didn’t become the essential non-being of the dead - since that, for Him, was ontologically impossible. He IS being. He IS life and death could not contain that life, so we are told.
Maybe that’s where people get fouled up and confused with Paul and everyone else in the Bible who say that death for all the rest of us not-Gods is the nothingness of non-being - i.e. a profound sleep…until the resurrection.
I see it as both an event and a process. The event would be the resurrection of Christ and the process would be that by which we, being found in Him, are awakened and pass from death unto life - ever man in his own order.
There is more to it than just “the last day”, though.
Yes, it It is called THE LAST DAY, but it is also called THE THIRD DAY and it is also called TODAY (all of which are ONE DAY to the Lord).
The resurrection is not past.
But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 1 cor 15
You’re using ‘every man in his own order’ to mean something quite different from it’s original context.
I never said that all references to death made in the scriptures refer to spiritual death. But I do believe that it by that which “is seen” (physical death, physical graves/tombs, corpses) that that which “is not seen” (spiritual death, the body of this death, the dead) are made manifest. They reveal to us and teach us spiritual truths.
Christ went out healing the sick. He heals the physically lame, deaf, blind and dead… to show us how lame, deaf, blind and dead “we” are (after a spiritual truth).
Yes, Christ is “the first-fruits of them that slept”. AMEN!! And blessed and holy is he that hath part in THE FIRST RESURRECTION. Jesus Christ IS the resurrection and the life. He IS that light/life that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He IS “our life” (that is HID) and it is not ~UNTIL HE APPEARS~ that we appear with Him in glory (Christ IN YOU, the hope of glory).
And, as I see it, this was just as true before the cross as it is since the cross (Abraham walked IN FAITH and it was accounted to him for righteousness… God is the God of THE LIVING, not the dead). Christ is the Lamb slain “from the foundation of the world”. Just because these things were not made manifest physically until “the end of the world” doesn’t mean that they do not point to and reveal spiritual truths - that have ALWAYS been true.
I respectfully disagree. I believe that “that which is seen” is temporal and meant to reveal to us “that which is not seen” which is eternal, including Christ’s “bodily” resurrection (WE are His “body” and “we” have been raised WITH HIM).
Ok, I’ll address it in a separate post, after I have a chance to go pull up the chapter.
Christ’s physically died and He was physically raised. But I still believe that these things point to and are meant to reveal spiritual truths.
But physical death is still a natural shadow of a spiritual truth, is it not? And Adam (“a living soul”) DIED “in the day” that Adam sinned, correct? And this “death” (not physical) was passed on to all men, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No?
When we die the flesh returns to dust (from whence it came) and the spirit returns to God (who gave it).
And before you tell me that this “spirit” is not “us” but merely the breath/spirit of God that gives life to the body, making us “a living soul” please remember that it is THE SPIRIT that God bears witness to, THE SPIRIT that is quickened (while the flesh PROFITS NOTHING) and THE SPIRIT that is saved in the day of the Lord.
Believe me, I used to see these things the same way that you do. I know exactly where you are coming from and why. I used to believe in ‘soul sleep’ and felt that, at the time, that there was absolutely no way around it, no way that it could be proven wrong. it seems to perfectly crystal clear to me at the time that I might have even been willing to staked my life on it being true. To go in to all of the “details” as to why I don’t see it that way anymore would take a great deal of time and space. But I will say that the first thing that began to crumble for me was my believe in “two” resurrections (not even counting Christ’s). I found it harder and harder to believe that “the elect” are to be resurrected FIRST (in “the first resurrection”) and everyone else in the second/general resurrection after “the millennium” when Christ said that in the time of harvest He would send forth His angels telling to gather FIRST THE TARES. So then I had to take another look at who “the dead in Christ” are the Paul said shall “rise FIRST”… and the “holes” just grew and grew until everything that I once believed about “the dead” and “the resurrection of the dead” just fell apart. And then so many other things began to come into focus and fall into place. That, to me, to “go back” to seeing it the way that I used to would be like asking me to “go back to” believing in ET. There are just too many things that would now have to be “undone” for me to ever think that that could happen. Of course, with God all things are possible and He can certainly “correct” those who need correcting; he is the one who give us the ears to hear and the eyes to see. But could you imagine ever “going back” to believing in “eternal torment” now (assuming that you once did, of course)?
I believe that Christ is our covering. Don’t you?
The scriptures say that it is “this mortal” that must “put on” immortality. If one need not be “unclothed” (take off this earthly tabernacle) in order to do that, then why should I believe that one needs to die (be unclothed and take of this earthly tabernacle) to do that? Death is swallowed up by life when we pass from death unto life in Christ, isn’t it?
I’m not confusing spiritual death and life with the literal (I assume you mean physical, since something can be “literally” true and still be spiritual, right?) resurrection. Even if you don’t agree with me, I do know the difference between spiritual death and physical death. I simply believe that one reveals the other and that it is the spiritual that counts, the spiritual that is important, and spiritual death that we need (as sinners) to be redeemed from. The flesh profits nothing and simply returns to dust when we die. It is the outward man that perished while the inward (“the second man”) is renewed day by day. No?
I’m not lumping them all together; I am dividing between the two. And I do understand how you see it; I used to see it that way myself. So it is not that I am “unable” to see or understand where you are coming from, I simply disagree with you. Because while I agree with you that “hades” is “the abode of the dead”, I do not see it as merely “the physical grave”. That is certainly true according to a natural truth, but not a spiritual one. And, as I see it, the physical grave is a ‘type’ of “the body of this death” that we all abide in, whose very throat is called “an open sepulcher”.
As I have come to understand it, the story of Adam and Eve (and the entire creation account… heaven, earth, sea, etc) are allegorical in nature. They reveal MANY different spiritual truths about how God is creating man in His image and after His likeness. It is not about just one man and one woman. It’s about mankind. It’s about the joining together of Christ and the church (His Body). It’s about that which is “first formed” (natural) vs that which is “created in His image” and blessed (spiritual). It’s about the difference between “the flesh” and “the spirit”, between “the first man” and “the second man”. And so much more I am sure.
I am trying to answer your questions, as best I can and it takes a lot of time (and that’s without even looking up an scriptures yet). So if you’d rather not discuss these things with me because you think I’m just nuts and what I have to say has no merit, then that’s fine with me. Just let me know.
So Christ’s death “was not exactly like ours” but our resurrection “will be just exactly like His”?
What about the rest of it? What does “when he comes” mean to you? How do you see “the second coming” of Christ?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that you probably see it pretty much the same way I used to (and how probably most do) as a physical manifestation to take place when Christ comes to resurrect the dead and gather all of those who are alive and remain and set up His kingdom on earth?
The problem that I began to have with that (among others) is that the scriptures say that His kingdom is “not of this world” and that it comes “not with observation”. So then I had to start looking at things like the fact that when Jesus promised to send the comforter, He said: “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.”
Additionally, we are told to “watch” for His appearing, as Christ comes the second time “unto them that look for Him”. But He also comes “as a thief in the night” (as He “comes” unto them that ‘sleep’… “awake though that sleepest and arise from the dead”, right?).
The mystery that was kept hid, but that is now revealed is “Christ in you, the hope of glory”. Right?
I see this as “the revelation of Jesus Christ” and “the resurrection of the dead” (after a spiritual truth). As the manifestation of the sons of God.
But NOT ALL are “alive”, some still “sleep” (“dead” in sin), right?
So THEN COMETH THE END… when He shall come to gather all of those who “remain” (both the LIVING and the DEAD), but it is (according to Paul) THE DEAD IN CHRIST who shall rise first, then those who are ALIVE AND REMAIN shall be caught up in the air with them and they shall forever be with the Lord.
Again, like you (I assume, so correct me if I am wrong) I also once saw “the dead in Christ” as believers who had died physically, who were awaiting “the resurrection of the dead” (from "hades’) at Christ’s “second coming”… BUT LATER I found that seeing it this way led to many contradictions that I just could not reconcile by maintaining ‘that’ understanding of who “the dead” (even “the dead in Christ”) are.
No, I see ‘the dead in Christ’ to be mankind, everyone - obviously, faith has nothing to do with being resurrected. No human being is ‘in Adam’ after the cross, all are in Christ. The dead are dead, but all will be freed. Redemption from death is free, universal, and eternal.
Because we happen to believe in this free redemption, does that make us more redeemed from death? That’s the argument people make. But I find it silly. Either one is dead or alive. So this idea of the ‘spiritually dead’ bringing death (when it has just been destroyed) with them into the resurrection as immortal newly resurrected zombies is patent nonsense and quite impossible.
I, too, believe that ALL are “in Christ”.
So if that is how you see it, then who do you see as “the dead in Christ” that are raised first? All of the physically dead, with just ONE resurrection?
I agree. But I think I agree “differently”, which may be hard to explain if you are saying that you don’t believe that there is any such thing as “spiritual death”? Is that what you are saying?
I believe that all have been “resurrected” with Christ… the Head and the body and as such I believe that death has already been destroyed. But while death has been destroyed and we have all been quickened together into “one body” though “one spirit”, I think that some “are fallen asleep” (which is why death and sleep are likened to one another) and, therefore, are still “dead” (in sin, as a spiritual truth). As even Paul says that those who love not their brethren still abide in “death”.
So while I agree that one is either alive or dead (awake or asleep), I see that after a spiritual truth as it related to ones knowledge of God rather than in relation to “living beings” vs “corpses”. As I see it, one can only be “dead” so long as they are "in the flesh and “in this world” (and subject to the lust thereof).
I’m not sure what you mean by “zombies” or what it means (to you) for someone to “bring death with them into the resurrection”? If all are already “in Christ” then are all “alive”? And if so then why does Paul say that those who love not the brethren still abide “in death”?
I’m not sure what you are saying?
But are you saying that you don’t believe in postmortem judgment? And you believe in only ONE resurrection? At which time we all go to be with the Lord?
Sorry, Aaron. I still have to come back to the stuff I said I’d have to come back to. I think I still owe you something on “the dead” in 1 Cor 15? Not sure if there is anything else? But if you’ve read my blog on it, as you seemed to indicate, maybe you already have your answer?
Good night!! 4am comes EARLY round these parts.
I think I read that wrong the first time… if “the dead in Christ” are “mankind” then are you saying that all are still “dead” and there are NONE who are “alive” (after a spiritual truth, with regard to mankind and those who are “in Christ”)? That all (though “in Christ”) are “dead”?
Didn’t Paul say that those who love the brethren “have passed from death unto life” and those who don’t “abide in death”? Meaning that some are “dead” and some are “alive”, even though ALL have been gathered together “in Christ”?
Ok , just so I can better understand you, could you please explain what you think makes a truth “spiritual?”
Do you think this “spiritual truth” is more important than the actual healings that Christ performed for people? Or do you see them as equally important?
What do you think it means for Christ to be “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep?” And what do you think Paul meant when he declared, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet”? I think the answer to these questions will help me to better understand your view.
I’m not so sure Paul is saying that “that which is seen is meant to reveal to us that which is not seen.” You seem to be suggesting that this life is one big allegory or parable, and that everything has a double meaning, but I’m not sure your method of interpretation is sound.
(My own understanding of 2Cor 5:18 can be found here, btw: What about 'things which are seen are temporary... )
On what basis do you believe this? And how do you determine what the “spiritual truth” of something is?
Where is it taught that physical death is a “shadow of spiritual truth?” I agree that “death” can be used in a figurative sense, but I don’t see how that makes physical death a “shadow” and the figurative death the “substance.” For instance, when Paul talks about being “dead in trespasses and sins,” this “death” is not literal death. He’s referring to a moral/relational state that is like death in some way. But this fact does not thereby make literal death a “shadow of spiritual truth.” I don’t think either is more important or “more profound” than the other; each simply is what it is.
Certainly, but to me certain details in the narrative context indicate that the “death” which God warned Adam of was not literal death. Adam did not cease to be a “living soul” after he sinned; he was just as much a “living soul” after he sinned as he was before he sinned. The “death” he died was evidently a cutting off from a state of innocence (Gen 3:7-8).
Elsewhere on this forum I noted the following concerning the Hebrew word translated “spirit”:
“The Hebrew ruach is a fairly flexible word encompassing several different (though related) meanings, among which are wind (Gen 8:1; Ex 10:19; 15:10; Num 11:31; 2Sa 2:11; 1Ki 19:11; Job 1:19; Ps 83:13; 107:25; Ecc 1:6; Isa 64:6; Jer 10:13; Dan 7:2; etc.) the essence of the life and vitality in both human beings and animals that is manifested through movement and breathing (Gen 2:7; 6:17; 7:15; Num 16:22; 1Ki 10:5; Job 7:7; 12:10; Ps 146:4; Eccl 3:19; 12:7; Jer 10:14; Eze 10:17; 37:5; etc.), and a mental disposition or state of mind (Deut 34:9; Num 5:14, 30; 1 Sam 1:15; 1 Kings 21:5; Psalm 51:17; Prov 16:9, 18, 19; Eccl 1:14; 7:9; Isa 11:2; 19:14; 61:3; etc.). In each case, the word denotes that which, though unseen (and largely unexplained) has visible effects.”
So basically I understand the word “spirit” (when referring to humans) to refer to either 1) the attribute or property that is common to all living creatures and visibly manifested in breathing, and which is represented as “departing” from the body and “returning” to God at death (i.e., what is commonly referred to as “life”) or 2) some mental process, thought pattern, or state/disposition of the mind (which, like the life of all living creatures, can only be made known by the visible effects it produces - i.e., by how it is manifested in a person’s words and actions).
So the “spirit” to which God bears witness is, I think, simply our consciousness. And God’s “quickening our spirit” simply refers to his radically changing our mental disposition/thought pattern and bringing it into harmony with his law. And I would understand 1Cor 5:5 (the last verse to which you make reference above) to mean (if I may paraphrase), “Remove this man from your midst in order that the adversity to which he will inevitably be exposed may lead to his repentance, so that he may be able to enjoy (i.e., mentally) an inheritance in the Messianic kingdom that is soon to be established.”
Well since nothing you say above describes what I believe, I guess that means my view is pretty safe from being in danger of “falling apart.” 
And perhaps you threw the baby out with the bathwater when you decided to reject the idea of any kind of “general resurrection” for mankind at a future time!
If by that you mean that Christ is the “heavenly dwelling” that we will be putting on when he returns from heaven to raise the dead and subject all people to himself, then no, I can’t say I believe that Christ is our covering.
Paul teaches that “the perishable” (i.e., those who are dead) will “put on the imperishable” (be raised from the dead) and “the mortal” (i.e., those who will not be “sleeping” when the last trumpet sounds, but will be found alive on that day) will “put on immortality.” It is those who will still be alive (cf. 1 Thess 4:15, 17) that will “put on immortality” without being “unclothed.” And if by the expression “pass from death to life” you’re referring to John 5:24, then no, I don’t at all think this is the fulfilment of Paul’s words in 1Cor 15:54. Christ is referring to a change in our character and affections in John 5:24 (cf. 1John 3:14), and in 1Cor 15:53 Paul is referring to the complete and permanent destruction of the same “death” from which Christ was raised on the third day.
There is only one literal “death.” Any other “death” is figurative in some way; that is, it is like, or resembles, literal death in some sense. Ditto with “life.”
If “literal resurrection” (I would say “physical resurrection” but it might convey the wrong idea - i.e., that our mortal bodies are simply to be reanimated as opposed to being changed completely) is not important, why then was Christ literally raised?
As far as “outward man” vs. “inward man,” I simply understand Paul to be referring to that aspect of us that will not continue when we are raised from the dead with that aspect of us that will (i.e., our mind/personality). Moreover, the way you worded it seems to express the idea that our “outward man” has already perished, but Paul says it is perishing/wasting away (but perhaps what you wrote was just a typo).
I agree that Sheol/Hades can be understood in secondary senses, but these senses in no way negate the original sense, or transcend the original meaning in importance. No matter what secondary sense they may carry in a certain context, the words Sheol/Hades will always express, in a primary sense, the state of the dead (i.e., “the grave” in a general, non-specific conceptual sense). So when you read a verse such as Eccl 9:10 (“there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going”) how do you understand it?
I do, in fact, believe certain Biblical accounts have allegorical elements to them (Gen 1-3 being one of them), but I think it is the genre and certain contextual details by which we determine which passages can and cannot undoubtedly be understood to have allegorical elements.
I don’t think you’re nuts , and while at present I find those ideas which are distinctive to your theology to be far from compelling (as I’m fairly sure is how you see my own views as well!), I definitely don’t think that what you have to say is “without merit,” and I do apologize if I gave you that impression.
Where is Paul? He’s dead. Sleeping until the resurrection - by his own account. Mankind is in Christ, not in Adam - that includes the dead. The ontological change from Adam to Christ is universal - because it is ontological, it is not a matter of ‘faith’ but of being. Everyone puts on immortality because they are in Christ, whose redemption of mankind was universal, free and eternal.
And yes, there is only ONE resurrection. Just as there is only one judgment and the rewards for advancing His kingdom. Look at Christ’s own depiction of the Judgment - it’s about works coming through faith, but not faith per se.
In the resurrection, everyone has ‘faith’ if one defines such as seeing Him as He is, confessing Him and loving Him because they ARE seeing Him as He is - their redeemer from death.
Will there be resentment (hatred) of that grace and mercy? Or joy? Isn’t that the problem?
To say that some bring hatred into the resurrection is to admit that death has not been destroyed. But that can’t be - hell has been emptied and destroyed. Where then is the hatred for God and our fellow man coming from - if the idea of such happening is not a fiction?
One only has to ask, who or what is the last enemy? to understand the purpose of an eternal redemption from it. Hell and death will be destroyed quickly and without fanfare. Mankind, in unison, will celebrate with their hero - every knee will bow.
People don’t like the reality that everyone is in Christ. They want to be superior and greater sinners saved by grace and expect to bring that death and resentment into the resurrection.
By what account? Paul said:
Php 1:21-24 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.
Paul was torn between his own desire TO DEPART AND BE WITH THE LORD (which was FAR BETTER FOR HIM) and remaining in the flesh (because he felt they needed him). Sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like a man who believed that he was just going to go sleep in the dust for awhile in a state of unconsciousness. How would that be a far better gain to him, so much so that he was torn between the two?
I’ve said repeatedly that I believe that all are in Christ, that all men have (universally) been gather together into one body, by one spirit. And I’ve not said once that it is a matter of faith (though I believe that it is, just not ours).
What depiction of the judgment?
I’m not sure what your addressing or what your point is. Maybe you can clarify?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Is this supposed to be addressing something that I said? If so, what?
To be honest, I can’t even tell if you are talking in the present tense and saying that all are in Christ “now” and death “has already been destroyed” or if you are talking about this being the case after the resurrection? It sounds like you are saying that this is present-tense reality, but then it seems like you are claiming that it can’t be because anger/hatred/resentment (all of those things) still exist and you’re saying that we can’t bring that with us “into the resurrection”.
So are saying that we are in Christ but still “dead” (both physically and spiritual)? Or just physically? Or both? Or neither?
What does “awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead” mean to you?
What did Christ mean when He said “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die”?
According to these verses (and many others like them) those who are “dead” are resurrected to “life” through Christ. They still die physically, but from “the dead” they have been “resurrected”. No?
If they have been resurrected from the dead only to die and have to be resurrected again, this means that there are “two” resurrections (though you say there is “one”). So is this “resurrection” spoken of above just “figurative” and not really mean anything? We don’t get “the real thing” until after we physically die and sleep in the dust for however long?
Are you trying to correct me? If so, why? I have said over and over again that I believe that all men are in Christ. You don’t seem to be hearing me say that, though I have said it numerous times. Do you believe that some of the other things that I am saying about the resurrection and judgment somehow “negate” the fact that I believe that all men are in Christ?