Aaron, I answered your post but it’s so long with all the quotes and responses that I am trying to “edit it down” to a shorter version, perhaps addressing your questions without having to leave in all the quotes.
Obviously we mean different things when we say ‘in Christ.’ I mean it ontologically, as we were in Adam. (Who is also now in Christ.)
You, on the other hand, use the phrase in a figurative and collective sense. So because He rose, we rose figuratively and collectively as well. It’s a nice thought but has nothing to do with the actual resurrection and makes a mess of the after life by covering with it a coat of ‘spiritual’ mush. I don’t see any virtue in obfuscation on this matter.
I’m not Christ - ontologically, I am like Him now, but I am not Him. When I die, I will be dead and sleep until the resurrection like Paul and everyone else. There’s one resurrection, not ten billion.
Both. We drag around sin and death like a ball and chain - it’s the human condition…for now. We won’t know true, complete liberation from that until the resurrection. Meanwhile, those who trust Him to liberate us, hang onto that hope.
Frankly, claiming much more than that is just a lot of ‘spiritual’ gas.
When you talk about being in Christ you mean it ontologically, but you are not Christ ontologically? Honestly, I have no idead what you are trying to say. 
As I see it we are all found “in Adam” (the first/natural man) FIRST before we are “born again” and thereby found “in Christ” (the second/last man). As I see it, All men are summed up in this “two Adam’s”; first the natural, then the spiritual. It is the difference between “the first born” and “the second born” (the elder and the younger). This pattern is seen through out the scriptures from Cain and Abel, to Ishmael and Isaac, to Esau and Jacob. It is the difference between “a child” and “a son”.
And while you might not be Christ ( I never even inferred that you are or that I am??) “the second man” IS “the Lord from heaven”. We are all by one spirit joined together in one body - HIS BODY - which is why even if we believe not yet He abideth faithful, for HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF.
I’m sorry that you seem to dislike those who “spiritualize death to death” (or anything else, it seems) but the scriptures are full of stories that are ripe with allegorical meanings that reveal how God is creating man in His image and after His likeness. And if one died for all then were all dead. You are not “going to die” you are already reckoned “dead” and the call is for to AWAKE and ARISE FROM THE DEAD (which you don’t seem to want to even address?)
Paul said his desire was to depart and be with the Lord. You might not believe that he actually is with the Lord, but I do. And I did not say that there are ten billion resurrections; I said there is ONE.
So then “awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead” is a call to corpses in physical graves that will not be resurrected for possibly tens of thousands of years?
No prob, take your time. I’m not in any hurry 
While you polish it up, I’d like to briefly respond to the following (which was addressed to RanRan):
First, it should be noted that the magnifying of Christ and advancement of the gospel is the theme of the first chapter of Philippians. In keeping with this theme, Paul reveals that his imprisonment had served to further the gospel of Christ (Phil 1:12). Likewise, Paul considered that his death would also result in the furtherance of the gospel and in Christ being magnified (v. 20). So based on the preceding verses, this is most likely the “gain” that Paul expected his death would be. Thus, the gain that Paul expected to be brought about as a result of his death was not his “going to heaven” and being in the presence of Christ immediately after his death.
But what does Paul mean when he says, “My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” To answer this question we need to first answer another question: What would this have been “far better” than? Answer: this would have been “far better” than the two options between which he was “hard pressed” (or “in a strait”). And what two options were these? Answer: remaining in the flesh, and dying. But if that which was “far better” was an option he was able to choose, then he would not have been “hard pressed” between it and the other option. The choice would have been a no-brainer for Paul. But that which Paul felt was “far better” was not something he could choose. He could choose to die, or he could choose to go on living (i.e., remaining in the flesh). Consequently, it was between these two options that he was “hard pressed” or “in a strait.” Neither option was personally preferable; he didn’t have a strong desire to go on suffering in prison, nor did he have a strong desire to die (for in 2Cor 5:1-4, Paul expresses his lack of desire to be “unclothed” after his death). At the same time, he knew that, whether by his life or by his death, he would magnify Christ and advance the gospel; consequently, he was torn between these two options. But as he decided it was “more necessary” to remain alive on account of the Philippian believers, he chose to continue living. But there was something that he desired above either of these two options, and that was to “depart and be with Christ.”
But why couldn’t Paul choose to “depart and be with Christ?” Because that was conditioned upon Christ’s return from heaven, not on Paul’s living or dying. And Paul knew this. If people went to heaven immediately after they died, then the following words that Christ spoke to his disciples shortly before his crucifixion would not be true. In John 13:33, 36, Jesus declared: “Where I am going, you cannot come” (cf. 7:33-34). And in John 14:3, we read: “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.” In other words, where Christ was going, his disciples would not be able to follow until after he “came again” and took them to where he was about to go. Christ is here talking about leaving his disciples and ascending to heaven (that place which is elswhere called “paradise”). But if, after they died, Jesus’ apostles went to heaven as quickly as their Lord did after his resurrection, then what Jesus said is not true; it would mean that his apostles followed Jesus to heaven right after they died - which would be long before Jesus is to come again to receive us to himself, so that we may be where he is.
So, Paul’s “departing and being with Christ” does not refer to something he expected to happen immediately following his death (for then he would be “unclothed”). He was instead referring to the time when Christ would return from heaven to raise the dead and subject all people to himself (Phil 3:20-21; cf. 2:9-11). At this time, everyone who has ever lived will be made immortal, and will be caught up to meet Christ in the air (1Thess 4:13-18). Paul did not expect to “depart and be with Christ” until then. But when this glorious event does take place, we will “be with the Lord always” (pantote, for all time). That’s my hope, at least.
Aaron,
To me a truth is a truth, whether it is true physically or spiritually. But how I see something might depend on how I “divide” between the two, but that doesn’t make the spiritual application “true” and the physical application “false”. And while is true that we all die physically and as such what is left of us is “a dead body”, I do not believe that we cease to exist in a state of consciousness when we die and this earthly tabernacle returns to dust. The fact that “the dead know not anything” and “can do no work” (etc) is only (as I see it now) an observational truth from perspective of “the living” looking at “a dead body”.
So when it comes to “death” I don’t see spiritual death and physical death as being “equally important”. Our physical existence it but a vapor compared to eternity, even almost non-existent, by comparison, wouldn’t you say? But the only way that we, as natural creatures living in a physical world, can see, know or understand that which is “not seen” is by that which is “made” (seen).
And when it comes to “the resurrection of the dead” I believe that it applies to “the dead” after a spiritual truth, not a physical one, as that is the penalty for sin and the death that we need to be redeemed from in order to have “eternal life”. So it’s not about corpses as much as it is about those who are dead in sin. And Christ being “the first-fruits” of them that slept I see in relation to the fact that it is only THROUGH CHRIST that any of us “live”. He is the incorruptible seed by which we are “born again” and “resurrected from the dead”.
The scriptures say: “blessed and holy is he that has part in THE FIRST RESURRECTION”, which leads many to believe that there is “more than one” and that is it believer who come forth in “the first” to reign with Christ “a thousand years” because it is not until the thousand years is finished that “the rest of the dead” will live again. You said that you don’t believe that and I don’t know what you believe, but it was THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION (Christ’s) that Paul wanted to know and Jesus said to Martha: “I AM” the resurrection and the life … and those who are “dead” SHALL LIVE and those who LIVE AND BELIEVE shall never die.
Daniel spoke of a time when “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt”, right? And Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live”, right? And Paul said: “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light”, right?
To me, none of this isn’t talking about corpses in physical graves . It is those who are “dead in sin” who need to be redeemed from “the body of this death”. And, according to the scriptures, Christ said “if I be lifted up I will draw all men unto me”. And God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, making of one blood all nations, creating one new man. So all have gathered together unto Christ into ONE BODY by ONE SPIRIT, no? And if any man be in Christ he is a new creature, right? So if ALL THINGS ARE NEW then what need is there for men to die, sleep in Sheol, and await “the resurrection of the dead” when “the dead” have already been resurrected/redeemed? Christ came to save us “from sin and death”, no? This applies to the living not corpses, doesn’t it?
You said: 'I’m not so sure Paul is saying that “that which is seen is meant to reveal to us that which is not seen”", and I have to wonder why you wouldn’t? What do you think he meant? What do you believe Rom 1:20 means when it says that “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”? Do we not know or better understand what it means to be spiritually dead by our observation of what it means to physically dead? What about Israel’s captivity in Babylon, their wandering around in the dessert for 40 years, their entrance into the promised land, etc? What about “the law” and all those animal sacrifices, etc. Weren’t those things (all “seen”) given ‘as examples’ of spiritual truths that are “not seen” that are part of our spiritual journey as we seek to enter “into the promised land”?
And what about all of the miracle that Christ performed – healing the physically lame, blind, deaf and dead (at various stages of death, which also speaks to spiritual truths, to me)? If those “physical” things were so much more important than to be ‘typical’ of those things that are taking place within the spiritual realm then why are there so few, if any, healings of this sort in the body of Christ?
You don’t seem to be “big” on allegorical interpretations of the scriptures (though you do acknowledge that they exist) but these are the very things that make the scriptures come alive, to me; they are what convince me beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are divinely inspired. Christ spoke in parables, so why would it be unheard of to think that this is how spiritual truths are revealed and that it takes the spirit to open them up so that we can understand them? Even Paul understood that there was more to the story of Adam and Eve then just the story of the creation of one man and one woman and that the story of Sarah and Hagar has a much deeper meaning that what was just on the surface. Even the physical rest of the Sabbath has a spiritual application that has nothing to do with physically resting on the seventh day of the week, as does water baptism. And what about Jacob and Esau? Joseph? Even Noah or Job? All of these OT stories (and many more) have a much deeper spiritual (allegorical) meaning than just what is presented in “the letter”. Would you not agree?
You said that Adam did not cease to be a living soul after he sinned, that he was “as much a living soul after he sinned as he was before". But was he? Sure he was still alive physically, but he was “dead” in sin, wasn’t he? You are equating “a living soul” to “a living being” (vs a physically dead corpse) but I think that you are missing my point when I pointed out that a soul (nephesh) is A BREATHING CREATURE.
If a soul/nephesh is “a breathing creature”, is that “breathing creature” physically dead? No, right?
So why does it take the breathe of life (the spirit of God), to make a “breathing creature” (nephesh) a “living soul” (chay nephesh)? What is the “spiritual” significance of this? (There is AN ALLEGORY here!! )
Compare this with Psa 104:29-30 which says: “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth”.
Do you see this passage in relation to physical life/death? Seeing that God sends forth His Spirit and men are created and made alive, but when God takes away His Spirit these same men physically die and their bodies return to dust? What about the fact that we are “dust” (earthen vessels) and that we (breathing creatures / souls) are dead in sin (prisoners of ‘the body of this death’ whose throat is “an open sepulchre”) and we need to be redeemed (called out of) this “grave”? Is this not done by God sending forth His Spirit (the breath of life) and “renewing the face of the earth”, whereby we are “created” in His image and after His likeness?
It is not “the first man” (the natural man, “formed” out of the dust of the ground) that is “created” in the image and likeness of God. It is “the second man” (the spiritual man) that is “created in the image and likeness of God” – the one who has THE BREATH OF LIFE (THE SPIRIT OF GOD); the one who is “born again” by the spirit of God. Not born “of water” only, but WATER AND SPIRIT. Psa 102:18 even speaks of the generation which is “TO COME” and the people which “SHALL BE CREATED”. As I see it, God did not “create” man in His image and after His likeness, He is creatING man in His image and after His likeness – it is a process by which we are conformed into the image of Son. First the natural (the ‘figure’ of that which is to come, the image of the earthy, the first Adam), THEN THE SPIRITUAL (the last Adam, the image of the heavenly, the second man, CHRIST). But while the first Adam was made “a living soul” the Last Adam was made “a quickening spirit”. What do you make of “Christ in you”, or Christ being made “a quickening spirit”? Do you see that as just a metaphor?
You think that I may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, but what makes you just assume that the scenario I mentioned in my earlier post is the only other scenario that I am familiar with and have rejected? That was merely an example of some of the things that I have believed in the past and later rejected. I have no problem with rejecting those things and still be able to see how a single general resurrection could be supported by the scriptures IF I thought that the scriptures supported the notion of soul sleep (as I once through it did, but have also since rejected that 
).
Will address the rest in a different post…. I may have to go back to just answering point by point with the quotes. It makes the posts longer (not like this one is so short) but it’s easier. 
So you believe that “this corruptible” refers to corpses and the “this mortal” refers to the living?
I disagree. Paul is not talking about physical death/resurrection. The “stars” (celestial bodies) mentioned in 1 Cor 15 are no different than the “stars” mentioned in the book of revelation and those “stars” are “the angels of the churches” and “the angels of the churches” are men (who have been “born again, who have had Christ formed in them and been “delivered of the child” just as Paul was… who was received ‘as an angel of God’ called to preach the gospel in the kingdom of God, sent “to reap” (the reapers are the angels) that which Christ said was “white, already to harvest”.
I think you missed my point, but never mind. It’s not important.
How else do you demonstrate “the resurrection of the dead” in a visible way?
Yes, it was a typo.
In the natural sense it refers to physical death, to a corpse, a dead body in which there in no life, that cannot work, think, contemplating life, praising God or anything else. In the spiritual sense it refers simply to those who are dead in sin needing to be redeemed from “the body of this death” that is their “grave” who also “know nothing” can “do no work” and are “in the depth of hell”.
I think that some are more obvious that others and some are even made reference to in the NT, but not all.
I actually agree with a lot of what you have written (that I have read), particularly in that thread at Tweb which may make up the bulk of what it is I have had the chance to read so far (so maybe not quite enough to say that I agree with “ a lot” of what you say… I don’t know). But with regard to that, the problem that I have with it is that it seems to focus more on the physical than the spiritual, even though you do address both. For example, you go into a lot of detail about what happened in 70 AD and how it fulfills prophesy… and I would agree. However, to me, that isn’t the spiritual fulfillment. Those things (“seen” in 70AD) are a physical manifestation of spiritual realities that are taking place in the invisible kingdom of God (that is within).
All that to say that “to depart and be with the Lord” doesn’t actually mean “to depart and be with the Lord”?
Paul was torn between two options (1) to depart and be with the Lord or (2) to remain in the flesh.
You seem to want to add a third option and say that his options were (1) to die (2) to remain in the flesh (3) to depart and be with the Lord with option #3 being “far better” than the other two, but not an option that he could choose.
I’m not sure how you get that out of that passage, but maybe I am misunderstanding? I’m going to have to re-read what you wrote again, more carefully, and with the passages in front of me and I don’t have any more time tonight to do that.
With regard to Christ’s disciples, though, I agree that they could not go where he was going. But Christ had not yet been crucified and resurrected. The NC was not yet in effect and they had not yet been “born again”.
But Christ did “come again” to receive them us to himself, so that they could be where he is. He fulfilled His promise when He said “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you”. And he said IN THAT DAY you shall know that I am in the Father and He in me and I IN YOU (CHRIST IN YOU, THE HOPE OF GLORY).
We are “the many mansions” in the father’s house that Christ was going to prepare.
And it’s not about ascending or descending (as the kingdom of God is WITHIN) and NO MAN has ascended into heaven but He first descended… but it is not “men” who ascends and descends, but THE ANGELS OF GOD who ascend and descend UPON THE SON OF MAN.
I’ll take a nothing look at this tomorrow when I have more time and can look up the various passages. 
Good night!!
Do you understand the study of BEING? i.e. Ontology. Is it worthy of your consideration?
I know what “ontology” is but, no, I do not have a degree in metaphysics or philosophy so perhaps my understanding of what it means or what you mean by it is somewhat flawed. So I still don’t know what you mean when you say that we are “in Christ” ontologically but then say that we are “not Christ” but only “like him” (though, like him “ontologically”). That just doesn’t make sense to me given my understanding of what it means to be one, ontologically (as opposed to, say, just functionally), with Christ.
Do you believe that Christ is one, ontologically, with the Father? If so, then does that mean, to you, that Christ is only “like” the Father, there being no actual “union” between the two?
You claim an “ontological” relationship exists between us and Christ and claim that I am looking at it as only a “figurative” relationship. Yet you (in my mind) seem to explain it as more a figurative relationship (saying we are only “like” him) than I do. As I have never claimed that our relationship to Christ is “only figurative”. But then you have already accused me several times of saying several things that I have not. 
So while you might think that I am full of “spiritual gas”, you haven’t even demonstrated that you’ve understood even one thing that I have said. So I will leave it up to you whether or not you want to explain what you mean by “ontologically one” or not. But I’d appreciate it very much if you’d drop the attitude, as I don’t know what I have done (other than maybe disagree with you) to deserve it.
I’m sorry if I did misunderstand you. But I thought you said that the dead are invisibly resurrected at the time of their death.
If you don’t have a physical body, you’re dead. You are messing with the hope of the resurrection - actually destroying people’s hope for your concept of a vaporous non-resurrection. The assumption that a Christian’s hope in the resurrection is not ‘spiritual’ enough is just wrong. What is your motive here?
Paul didn’t put up with this nonsense. Why should we? I probably look like a butt-head for saying that - but sheesh, some things must be defended.
“They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” 2 tim
Can you provide a quote where I said that (since the quote below does NOT say ‘that’)?
Paul strived to know the power of Christ’s resurrection and he continued to strive for it, not as though has had already attained unto the resurrection of the dead but counting it not. And he told “as many as be perfect” to walk by the same rule. That doesn’t mean that Paul thought that he (and everyone else) was still ‘dead’.
Paul knew very well that all things are new, that all men are in Christ, and that any man in Christ is a new creature. And, as such, we are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. We need only “awake from our sleep” (and arise from the dead) and walk in the light of the day and know God, for today is the day of the Lord!!
That is not to “destroy people’s hope” it is to tell them that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself and that all who died in Adam have been made alive in Christ!! Therefore be ye reconciled to God ~and know~ the power of His resurrection!! For bless and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection (HIS/HIM). For if the first-fruit be holy, THE LUMP IS ALSO HOLY: and if the root be holy, SO ARE THE BRANCHES!!
One need not have a physical body to be alive. Or have you forgotten that God is spirit and that that Jesus Christ was made a quickening spirit? Besides, there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body and, according to Paul, if this earthly tabernacle (a natural body) were dissolved we would know that WE HAVE an house not made with hands (a spiritual body) eternal in Heaven, as (when it comes to the spiritual body) GOD GIVES IT A BODY and to each seed its own body!
So you can accuse me of “messing with the hope of the resurrection” or of “destroying people’s hope” or of believing in some sort of “vaporous non-resurrection” or whatever, when it still doesn’t seem to me that you understand what I believe well enough to even make those types of comments. Nor do I understand how one can believe that we are all “in Christ” (ontologically) and yet claim that those “in Christ” are dead when Christ is risen!!
So if anyone is messing with or destroying peoples hope in the resurrection here, I don’t think that would be me. As I don’t think that I am the one Paul would be disagreeing with, though you are free to continue to do so, if you wish (though I would still appreciate a little bit more respect and a little less condescension).
Ontology is as much about the study of illusion as it is about reality. We see men sinning and dying and assume that nothing has changed in man in terms of his essential being since Adam. But being itself is infused with God and His Word. So Paul makes the astounding observation that man no longer finds his essential being (his ISNESS) in Adam but in Christ - a polar opposite (in some ways) that smashes the illusion we hold as the ‘reality’ about ourselves.
Christ was made a man and will always be a man. When he was separated from his body he was dead. And stayed dead. And would have stayed dead forever if He had not been resurrected. A bodiless spirit is not a PERSON. “It is I, myself!” That was Christ after His resurrection - a PERSON again! Physically eating, being touched, etc. Not a ghost, not an illusion. Flesh and bone.
There is such a thing as death - it is not destroyed yet. When the time is right, Christ will free everyone from death - but that time has not come yet. Until then, the resurrection remains the Great Hope of mankind.
People want life again - not gas. They want to hug their parents and their children and their spouse. They want to kiss Christ’s feet and thank Him. And they will.
I think you need to understand that being ‘in Christ’ is not a statement about location or where people are actually and physically found. People are distinct from each other - I’m not Christ and He’s not me. Ontologically, I am patterned after Him and share a destiny with Him while retaining my own separate personhood as evidenced by my body and His body not being the same body.
But what is a “spiritual truth” to you in distinction from a “physical truth?” Is a “spiritual truth” that which is allegorical? Is it that which pertains to one’s mind or character? And is “spiritual truth” (or “spiritual application”) more important to you than “physical truth” (or “physical application”)?
I agree that this is an “observational truth from the perspective of the living.” But what makes you think this “observational truth from the perspective of the living” is not also the actual, “full” truth? Where in Scripture do you think it is first revealed that this “observational truth” is not also the “full” truth in regards to what happens to a person after death? 
But if what you refer to as “spiritual death” can only happen to those who are physically alive (which is what I believe), then it is also but a “vapour compared to eternity, even almost non-existent.” So “spiritual death” would not transcend “physical death” in importance. But do you have contrary evidence that any who are physically dead are yet “dead in their sins?”
What do you think the author of Hebrews is talking about when he refers to “that which is unseen?” It seems to me that he’s referring to either the “word of God,” or to God himself.
Again, I have no doubt that there is “resurrection language” in Scripture that is to be understood in a figurative sense (i.e., where a coming back to life after literal death is not in view), but what reason do you have for understanding Paul’s language in 1Cor 15 in a figurative sense when he speaks of the resurrection of the dead? Was Jesus’ resurrection a figurative resurrection like that described in Ezekiel 37, or John 5? While I’m aware you view his resurrection as having a “spiritual application,” the fact remains that Jesus literally came back to life in a literal, incorruptible body. You do believe this, right? And since Paul hinges the fact of our resurrection on the fact that Christ himself was raised (v. 12, 20), as well as declares, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised” (v. 13, 16), it would appear that Paul is clearly establishing the inherent similarity of Christ’s resurrection with that of all mankind, and the shared nature that Christ’s resurrection has with the resurrection which all people are to one day experience. Was Christ literally resurrected after he died? Then so will all who die. Was Christ literally raised with an imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body? Then so will all who die (and by “spiritual body” Paul certainly did not mean “allegorical body” or “unseen body,” for Christ’s resurrected body was certainly real as well as able to be seen).
Is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians to be read, interpreted and understood in the same exact way that we read, interpret and understand the book of the Revelation? Is Revelation of the same genre of literature as, say, Paul’s epistle to the Romans, or his first letter to Timothy? If the answer to both questions is “no,” then your attempt to take the highly symbolic “first resurrection” to which John refers in Rev 20 and lump it in together with the resurrection of the dead of which Paul speaks in 1Cor 15 is, to say the least, highly questionable.
Having said that, however, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that John occasionally uses literal, straight-forward language in Revelation (e.g., when John tells his readers that he received his visions while on the island of Patmos, he means just what he says with no “spiritual” meaning implied). And it’s also true that Paul occasionally uses figurative language in his letters when making certain points. But for Revelation, the literal, straight-forward sense of words and expressions is the exception and the figurative is the rule, whereas in Paul’s epistles the very opposite is the case. And it is pretty apparent to me when Paul is employing figurative language (in one instance he even outright says that what he’s talking about is to be understood allegorically! - Gal 4:24), just as it is evident when John is employing literal, straight-forward language. But again, distinguishing between the two is extremely important (and I’m intentionally oversimplifying here, and not taking into account all the various idioms and figures of speech employed by the authors of Scripture even when they’re speaking in a relatively straight-forward manner); otherwise, everything either gets read and understood according to a strict, wooden literalism (as some read Revelation, for instance), or everything becomes so allegorical and “spiritual” that nothing is really what it seems, and everything takes on a “hidden” meaning with multiple “spiritual” applications.
It is becoming more and more evident that you don’t really know what I believe (whereas before you seemed to be pretty sure of it!). I think I’ve already shared my views concerning Jesus’ words to Martha (and I think we’re both in agreement that Christ is not talking about living beyond the death of the body here; the “life” and “death” of which Christ speaks seem to refer to two moral/relational states - one that is in overall harmony with God’s character and will, and another that isn’t).
As far as Phil 3:10-11 goes, I agree that Paul is employing (relatively) figurative (i.e., metaphorical) language here; however, it is evident from what is being said that this is so. When Paul speaks of being made conformable unto Christ’s death, it is obvious that it was not his aim to be literally put to death as Jesus was (as I’m sure most would agree). What he desired was to be so victorious over sin as to attain to the radical, self-sacrificing spirit which Jesus exercised even unto his death on the cross. The same idea is essentially expressed in Rom 6:6 (“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin”). And as this “becoming like him in his death” in v. 10 denotes the “crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and desires” (cf. Gal 5:24), of course the next words (“that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection of the dead”) is simply an extension of this metaphor that pertains to the Christian walk and life. Paul’s attaining to “the resurrection of the dead” here evidently signifies his reaching the zenith of Christian maturity - i.e., what he goes on to refer to as being “perfect” (v. 12), that is, complete moral conformity to Christ’s image (cf. 2Cor 3:18).
But is this “resurrection” the same as “the resurrection of judgment” in John 5:29? No, of course not. But in both instances, “resurrection” language is being employed in a non-literal way. But they clearly don’t mean the same thing. Similarly, when Paul says he and the other believers had been “dead in trespasses and sins” but were subsequently “made alive in Christ” (Eph 2:5-6) he’s employing resurrection language in a non-literal way to express a moral (i.e., a “spiritual”) truth - but not even this figurative “resurrection” (though certainly similar) is the exact same “resurrection” of which Paul spoke in Phil 3:11 (for again, in Phil 3:11 Paul is speaking of something to which he had not yet attained!). Or how about Ezekiel 37? Is the prophet describing the same “resurrection” as Paul is describing in Phil 3:11? No, of course not; Ezekiel is referring to a national “death” and “resurrection” of Israel - and though a national reformation is also implied, this “resurrection” language is not identical in meaning to what Paul is speaking of in Phil 3:11. The only thing they have in common is that figurative “resurrection” language is being employed.
Correct, and while I do understand the above “resurrection language” as being similar in nature, the fact remains that not all resurrection language (not even all figurative resurrection language!) refers to the same thing. Just because some language is figurative does not mean that all is - and I think 1Cor 15 is a prime example of “resurrection language” that simply cannot be understood as anything but literal without doing violence to the text.
Not literally, no. But that doesn’t mean 1Cor 15 (in addition to other passages) is not talking about the same kind of resurrection that Christ experienced three days after his death. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that (if understood literally) the resurrection of the dead in 1Cor 15 has anything to do with corpses in physical graves being reanimated. That’s not my belief, anyway. Though God can certainly transform a corpse into a resurrection body (as he did with Christ’s body), my opinion is that the resurrection body is not made out of the same exact matter that we are presently made of (at least, as it exists in its current state). While I have no doubt that we will still be ourselves (for I expect whatever it is that makes us who we are as persons to continue in the resurrection), that doesn’t necessarily mean God is going to use the same exact particles by which we are presently constituted (which, for most, would be impossible anyway!).
Agreed! But did Christ’s resurrection consist of him being “redeemed from the body of this death?” Was Christ “dead in sin” during his three days in the tomb?
True, but has this already happened? I don’t think so (and I’m assuming you’d agree, but maybe not). And can all men be drawn to Christ while they’re physically dead? Could Christ draw all men to himself while he was dead and buried in a tomb? While many would say “yes,” I say “no.” I see nothing in Scripture that indicates that people can do anything at all while they’re dead (except return to the dust).
God’s making “from one (the word “blood” is not found in the earliest manuscripts) every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26) has nothing to do with the Church. And I ask for proof that the “one body” of 1Cor 12:13 (i.e., the “body of Christ,” which is the church) refers to the resurrection body of 1Cor 15 (which you seem to be implying, though I could be wrong). I see no more reason to identify the church with the resurrection body than I see reason to identify the church with the literal body of Paul (1Cor 5:3; 13:3) or of anyone (1Cor 6:20).
To be a “new creature” in Christ is not to be raised from the dead like Christ was raised. To be a “new creature” in Christ is not equivalent to putting on the imperishable or immortality in the twinkling of an eye. It refers to a radical change in one’s perception and character that comes through faith in Christ. The “all things” that are “new” for those who have been “born of God” or become “new creatures in Christ” refers to the radical new perception and character we acquire when we believe the Gospel. You’re confounding this moral (“spiritual”) change that takes place by faith with the kind of resurrection that Christ experienced on the third day following his literal death (and without which he would have remained dead and lifeless). The “death” of which you’re speaking above is not the death that Christ died, or the death from which we’re told he was saved (Heb 5:7), nor is it the death that Paul says is the “last enemy” and which is to be destroyed on the last day of Christ’s reign.
If we’re talking about 2Cor 4:18 here, I think Paul meant that we (believers) don’t live as if all that there is and ever will be is all that we can presently see. That which is “unseen” here refers to the future reality of our resurrection bodies, which will be received when Christ returns to raise the dead and transform the living. This is the “living hope” to which Peter says we are “born again” (1Pet 1:3-4).
Here Paul’s talking about God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature” - not our future resurrection bodies or anything else.
Yes, they can all be understood as types that pointed to Christ and our Christian experience. But the types ended with the advent of Christ - yet you’re still trying to find them everywhere in the NT.
Jesus’ healing miracles were primarily for the purpose of authenticating and testifying to his Messiahship. And this miraculous power was given to the apostles to authenticate their being witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection, for the establishment of the church. This being their primary function, such healings are relatively few today (though I won’t say they never happen!).
I have other reasons for viewing them as inspired that don’t require seeing allegories on every page. 
Sure, but that’s only the secondary meaning, not the primary meaning. If the most important reason for why people existed before Christ was merely to provide a relatively few people living in subsequent generations with allegories and “spiritual applications,” then I’d say their lives were pretty unimportant. Moreover (as I said earlier) I understand such “typological” meanings to be restricted to the OT, and not continuing after the advent of Christ.
Yeah, he was. His being a “living soul” had nothing to do with the “death” he died when he sinned. Adam didn’t cease to be a “living soul” until 900 something years after he was created.
Again, Adam’s being a “living soul” had everything to do with his being “alive physically” (just like other animals that God created are called “living souls”) and nothing to do with the death he died on the day that he sinned.
A nephesh is not a creature that is necessarily breathing, and you’ll be hard-pressed to prove otherwise. It is a creature that either has or had the created capacity to be a breathing creature. But only if it has the “breath of life” is it in fact a creature that is breathing.
See above answer. No allegory here (and even if there were, I see no reason why it would transcend the original meaning of the text in importance and application).
Yes, that is the straight-forward meaning of the text.
I think you’ve lost sight of the simple truth being revealed according to the straight-forward meaning of the text (which, taken at face value, doesn’t support the idea that we continue to live beyond death) and supplanted it with a “spiritual application.”
Well Christ is literally a resurrected man seated at the right hand of God, so he’s not literally “in me.” But he is in a figurative sense, for I try to keep him (and all that he taught and revealed) on my mind as much as possible. And as I continue to believe the Gospel of his death and resurrection, my mind is being progressively renewed to be more like his, and, like Paul, I’m being “transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.”
As far as Christ’s being a “quickening spirit,” I believe Paul’s meaning here is simply that, just as God’s spirit gives and sustains the life of all living things, so Christ is the one who is going to impart life to the dead (i.e., immortality). But doesn’t Christ also give “spiritual” life to people? Of course (John 5:21, etc.). But I don’t think that this fact is here being emphasized by Paul. The context is not about people dead in sin being made alive through faith in Christ; it’s about mankind being saved from the same “death” from which Christ was saved on the third day after his crucifixion (Heb 5:7). And while I do believe that the resurrection will also permanently solve the sin problem (1Cor 15:55-56), that is not Paul’s main focus here.
Yes, in the context Paul appears to be distinguishing the dead from those who will still be alive when the resurrection takes place with the expressions “perishable” and “mortal.” But that’s not to say the dead will not also be “immortal” when they are raised; they will be. Paul is simply using two different words to distinguish two different states.
When Paul says (speaking of the risen Christ), “Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1Cor 15:6), what do you think he meant by “…though some have fallen asleep”? And when he uses the exact same expression two more times a few verses later (vv. 18, 20), do you think he means something different? I don’t. And when Paul says, “…we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised” (v. 15), do you think the death from which Christ was “raised” is different than the death from which the dead are to be raised? I don’t.
How did you determine that the “stars” of which Paul speaks in 1Cor 15 are symbolic of something else? And what do you think Paul meant when he spoke of “the sun” and “the moon?”
Why do you think Christ’s resurrection demonstrates what you think it does?
Well if I were to adopt your method of interpretation, it could mean something like, “to spiritually depart from my sins and be spiritually with the Lord in the spiritual awareness of the realization of being spiritually one with his spiritual presence,” etc. etc. 
No, “all that to say that” I don’t think Paul meant what you are confident he meant. I don’t think Paul is talking about going to heaven to be with Christ prior to the resurrection of the dead (e.g., as a disembodied spirit). I don’t know of any other verse or passage where he revealed he would be with Christ prior to this event. When he talks about “being with Christ” I think he’s talking about what Jesus was talking about in John 14:2-3, and what Paul himself talks about in 1Thess 4:13-18 (i.e., Christ’s return from heaven to raise the dead and draw all people to himself).
I believe he was torn between dying and remaining in the flesh. For Paul, “to live is Christ and to die is gain.” What gain? Again, see the preceding verses: the “gain” was evidently the advance of the gospel and the honoring of Christ in his body “whether by life or by death.” Paul then reveals how he is “hard pressed” between living or dying. I’m not entirely convinced that Paul’s “departing” refers to his death; but (and this may surprise you!) I’m actually not entirely against the idea, either! There are some who hold to the doctrine of “soul sleep” who believe this, so it’s not inconsistent with my views. So, let’s assume that when Paul spoke of “departing” he was referring to his death. What then would Paul mean if that were the case? Would it mean he expected to go to heaven in a disembodied state? Not at all. All that need be meant by Paul’s words if this were the case is that he expected his next conscious experience after death to be “with Christ.”
Because the dead are in a state of unconsciousness (Eccl 9:5), from their perspective no time will seem to have passed at all between death and resurrection. Though we may be aware that we’re in the process of dying, once we have actually died we will have no conscious awareness of being dead. That is, we will not “experience” death, or be aware of the passing of time between our death and resurrection. One’s last conscious moment before death, and one’s next conscious moment after being awakened from death, will seem to be consecutive and without any interval of time in between (though perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years may have actually elapsed). God has so designed human beings that, from our perspective, our stream of consciousness will seem to never have been broken. So Paul may simply be speaking in view of this fact; after dying, his next conscious moment would be at the time when Christ catches us up to meet him in the air, to be with him forever.
Either view is completely consistent with my views; but what I think is entirely inconsistent with the rest of Scripture is the idea that Paul expected to go to heaven prior to experiencing the same kind of resurrection that Christ experienced after his death.
Where was Christ going? And where was he just prior to the time when you believe he “received them to himself?”
So when Christ said, “I go to prepare a place for you” what he meant was, “I go to prepare a you for you”? 
Aaron,
I went back and read all of Phillipians and I just can’t see where it says what you are saying. I certainly agree with you that Paul knew that Christ would be magnified whether by his life or by his death, which is why Paul was not ashamed to preach the gospel with boldness – not fearing for his life. But Paul clearly says that he is torn between two things:
(1) to depart and be with the Lord or
(2) to remain in the flesh.
And the one he considered “far better” (for himself) was to depart and be with the Lord. But he knew that it was needful (to them) for him to remain in the flesh, so he was confident that he would.
I see not third option there. Nor can I imagine Paul even saying “to be with the Lord” if his departing did not involved actually being with the Lord. I also can’t image Paul being “torn” about anything if there was no option to be with the Lord available to him, especially if (as you say) his only ‘real’ options were to either remain in the flesh or die (and remain in a state of unconsciousness) and he (according to you) did not desire to die and, thereby, be “unclothed”. What was there to be “torn” over if that is the case? An option that he couldn’t choose anyway? Why even bring it up?
So, as far as Paul not wanting to die because he didn’t desire to be “unclothed” after his death, I think that you are misreading that passage as well. Perhaps that is because of how you see death and the resurrection of the dead and the day of the Lord and I can certainly sympathize having once been in the same position, but the whole point of 2 Cor 5:1-4 is to tell us that we know that “if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, WE HAVE a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”. Paul says that it is “in this” that we groan, not desiring to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon that mortality might be swallowed up of life. It’s not about dying, it’s about living. It’s about having been reconciled to God through Christ. It’s about having Christ formed in us (as that is “the hope of glory” and the mystery that was kept hid from ages and generation that has now been revealed unto the Gentiles)
We receive “the earnest of the spirit” when we first believe but we are “yet carnal” and must “go on unto perfection” (God willing). And what Paul waited for and wanted to see was Christ formed in them and for them to be delivered of the child that a man (even the sons of God) might be born into the world (just as was Paul’s own experience and one he went trough ‘again’ with them as they travailed in birth).
Paul goes on to say that if one died for all then were all were dead and because Christ died for all those who live should not live unto themselves but unto Him that died for them. He goes on to say: “Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh” (not even Christ) for “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”.
Clearly, Paul is not talking about dying or even of Christ’s return at the end of time to gather all who remain. He’s talking about the fact that death has been swallowed up of life and all things are become new. We need to awake from sleep and arise from the dead for today is the day of salvation.
I do get that even to the Philippians Paul talks about “the day of Christ” as if it is yet future and something that we are to be striving for, something that he continued to strive for, but was it because he had not already attained unto the resurrection of the dead or because he simply “counted it not” (and tells us to walk by the same rule)?
Well, thanks for the rolling eyes, but that is not my method of interpretation at all. I have in no way indicated that I believe that we exist as disembodied spirits after we die while we wait for our bodies to be resurrected or for God to give us our spiritual body, which is what you seem to be inferring here (and what you say below).
Is that what you believe? That the only two choices we have are “soul sleep” or “disembodied spirits”?
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, making one blood of all nations, creating one new man in Christ Jesus. We have already been gathered together in Him, by one spirit, into one body. What or who is left to be gather?
Already addressed in my previous post. But I will add here that I recognize this “spin” to the passage because I used to spin it this way myself . Just like I used to make the point that Paul did not say “to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord” but “to be absent from the body AND to be present with the Lord”. That way I could account for the “gap” that I had to read into the verse because of my belief in soul sleep and how I understood the resurrection of the dead. But that argument eventually fell apart, at least it did for me.
I disagree, that is death from the perspective of the living - looking at the physically dead.
But if we compare Eccl 9:5 to Prov 9:13-18 we can see that even the living who are dead in sin “know nothing” and are “in the depths of hell/sheol”:
Pro 9:13-18 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. For she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, To call passengers who go right on their ways: Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: and as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him, Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant. But he knoweth not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of hell.
I am aware of the concept; I used to make the same argument myself, just ask anyone who knew me a few years ago. In fact, I believe that it was Sonia who first pointed out to me what Paul said to the Philippians a few years ago when I still (very strongly) believed in soul sleep.
His natural body coming out of his tomb without ever seeing corruption?
He was going to the cross and he could not receive them unto himself until after was crucified and resurrected and had ascended to the Father.
Huh? Christ did not say he was going to prepare the many mansion; he said:
Joh 14:2 ** In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.**
Where have I ever said that Jesus Christ is not a man?
I disagree.
I don’t know what you mean by “person” but certainly one can exist without a body or there would be no God.
Did I deny that Christ’s tomb was empty or that he appeared in a physical body of flesh and bones, seen by many, and ate with and was touched by His disciples, etc? He also appeared in locked rooms, was not recognized by some of those who knew Him in the flesh and was received into a cloud. Is he now sitting in heaven (or on a cloud) in his body just patiently waiting for all of the rest of us to join him since he is the only man in heaven?
2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
Death had been abolished for those in Christ who walk according to the spirit.
Christ has opened the graves, we just need to answer the call and come out of them. But I agree, this is the great hope of mankind, to KNOW the power of His resurrection. And you are right, not all KNOW it yet.
And I look forward to the day that I will hold my daughter again and kiss her feet (and cheeks). What makes you think I feel otherwise?
Exactly my point. One need to “go to heaven” to be WITH/IN CHRIST or to be RESURRECTED WITH HIM or to be SEATED WITH IN in heavenly places… HAVING PASSED from death unto life.
Where have I ever claimed that people are not distinct from each other? Or that I believe that being “one body” negates that distinction (especially when I believe that we are a part of the body now)?