Yes, I agree that the acorn as an acorn must die. Thus, if the seed’s integrity or nature is not lost, then the tree will not develop from the seed. So, the seed does lose its integrity or nature, and in that sense, its life ends, to yield the tree.
But this analogy does not seem to get at the imperishable part. Neither the seed nor the tree is unperishable in any sense that I can see.
Well no, of course not, that’s why I said the metaphor is partial - and that is the USE of metaphor, right? To point at something we cannot quite grasp from something we can.
In any case, I’m sure you’ll get plenty of other opinions. 
The contrast that was made was with the “natural” and normally that contrast would be “supernatural” not “spiritual”.
I’m just going by the actual words used in1 Corinthians 15:46.
“However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.”
But Christ’s body was supernatural in that he told Thomas to feel his wounds and he ate some fish yet he walked through walls. The word spiritual may not mean exactly what we think, like we think something like a ghost?
And that right there should give a strong clue as to Paul’s USE of metaphor, i.e., the undertones of 1Cor 15 used to expound covenantal realities.
The bible nowhere states Jesus had a ‘supernatural body’… what Jesus had was a resurrected body. You do recall the gospels record Jesus doing so-called supernatural type of things BEFORE he died, right? — like walking on water etc.
Very true. Given the bible is primarily about covenant then spiritual and natural can be likened to covenant realities… old covenant = natural and new covenant = spiritual.
What was ‘Christ’s Body’? Answer… the NT body of believers. Interestingly we don’t get all twisted up over that as it makes PERFECT sense… I suggest we apply THAT understanding to 1Cor 15.
Perhaps in light of this discussion this below might be reconsidered…
If you look at the Wisdom (Yoga (1, 2); Zen (1, 2), Red Road ( 1, 2)) and Light ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6) traditions. Or read the biographies of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Indian yogis, Native American Holy People, Islamic Sufis and Tibetan Lamas - who are considered saints…well, guess what? They can do all the mystic and miracle stuff, you see in the Bible. And I think Adam and Eve, could do the same stuff - at least potentially. So whatever body Jesus had, at least they appear to tap into - the same mystical benefits (AKA Theosis). Like these Tibetans do:
Note: I think I have become “corrupted”, by being a lifetime member - of the Theosophical Society (chiefly for their extensive library collection). Just as I have become “corrupted”, in my theories of Homo Re-Animus Evolution and Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) tribulation…by watching shows like The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead. 
As Davo said, Jesus demonstrated his supernatural essence well before his resurrection, so a supernatural essence is not a unique characteristic of only resurrected Jesus.
When Jesus returned to provide evidence of his resurrection, he appeared to be material, but material things do not walk through walls (e.g., John 20:19). So, that suggests an immaterial essence. Yet he was visible to others and was touched by Thomas (e.g., John 20:19-29)! How could he be immaterial if he could be physically seen and touched?
Could it be that the resurrected Jesus was immaterial, as will be everyone after being resurrected? But in those instances when Jesus appeared to persons here in this world after his resurrection. did he work with the sensory systems of mere mortals and cause them to see and feel something that would not have been otherwise seen or felt? Who knows? That would seem to be possible in a being, Jesus, who has supernatural abilities. So, if the resurrected Jesus is both immaterial and has supernatural abilities, then these seemingly contradictory claims from the Bible can be reconciled.
This subject area is indeed confusing when one tries to piece together the various biblical descriptions of the behavior of resurrected persons and of life in heaven. That won’t stop us from speculating, though. It may in fact stimulate speculation.
I reckon I’m missing the point here.
The NT is as clear as it can be, that the body of Christ - his mortal, just-like-us body, the one nailed to that cross - that same body was resurrected by God’s power. Because of THAT, we have the hope that the same is true for our bodies, our selves.
Some people do not like that, for some reason. But it seems to be THE act, the real act, that is the center of almost all reality. If that did NOT happen, if that same body that was crucified was NOT resurrected - then according to the NT, neither will ours be.
And what really is the problem? Is vocabulary the sticking point? Why COULDN’T God do this - take our bodies, bring them back to life as He did Jesus’, and clothe it with immortality?
The gospel message is that, as Christ was raised from the dead (same body in, same body out) so we shall be. I’m pretty happy with that.
The biggest problem to me is the claim that the resurrected body is imperishable and thus immaterial. Even if that claim had not been made by Paul, mere awareness of basic physics and the ravages of aging would almost make it certain that we in heaven could not have a material body.
So, how can one reconcile imperishable, immaterial bodies in heaven with what the Bible says about the resurrected Jesus, the only being who has been described in detail after being resurrected? The above is an attempt to do that.
I understand, and I’m not criticizing. I guess my point is that, if the apparent power of God that took Jesus’ body and ‘did something to it’ - is true - then we are faced with something we are not going to be able to figure out. But then, we cannot figure out the resurrection of the Lord, either.
But there are some things we can figure out. We know from Paul, physics, and biology that resurrected, eternal bodies–if they exist–would be immaterial. We further know that resurrected Jesus had what appeared to us to be both an immaterial and a material body. Thus, an explanation is needed for this apparent contradiction. I suggest the explanation above.
Well, I don’t think we know that at all. That makes it a lively discussion.
Our difference is that I don’t espouse the idea of the either-or in this discussion. There is to my mind an obvious third category, which I’m gonna call material+.
And I think material+ fits very well with Paul, science, all that stuff - taking into consideration that there is something greater than nature - God’s power and wisdom. I see no LOGICAL reason to dismiss the material+ position, and many reasons to accept it.
If we don’t strain at the camel of the physical resurrection of Christ, I don’t see the strain at swallowing the gnat of God doing the same for all of us.
Well, we know that Paul said a resurrected body is imperishable. I think it safe to say imperishable means “immaterial.” We also know from the second law of thermodynamics and biology that highly organized material systems like the human body “wear out.” So, if such bodies were to last forever, they would be immaterial.
Indeed, and that’s what makes this discussion productive, and I appreciate your contribution to the thread.
Our difference is that I don’t espouse the idea of the either-or in this discussion. There is to my mind an obvious third category, which I’m gonna call material+.
And I think material+ fits very well with Paul, science, all that stuff - taking into consideration that there is something greater than nature - God’s power and wisdom. I see no LOGICAL reason to dismiss the material+ position, and many reasons to accept it.
Yes, that seems reasonable. But I am taking into account God’s power, too; I am directly addressing the supernatural abilities of the deity when I appeal to the supernatural abilities of Jesus in moving though walls and making us see and feel his immaterial body.
Oh, I strain at the former, too!
I have some questions.
How do we know that scientific stuff, will continue to function - in the world to come?
Or that miracle and mystical stuff, operates via the laws of science?
Regarding the first question, I don’t know. It’s an assumption. But all of the stuff about the Big Bang and God’s being behind it suggest that the assumption is not far-fetched.
Regarding the second question, I don’t think miracles–should they be authentic supernatural events–fully operate via the laws of science. That’s why they are called miracles.
I agree. This has been an interesting discussion but probably too esoteric for my limited ability to grapple with some of the issues. I have previously offered my thoughts for what they are worth, which is not much, I admit.
Tell you what, as one more likely to find out the truth sooner than most of you, I’ll send the answers down to you as soon as I know. I’ll have to include directions in my will to have my laptop placed in the coffin, plus some long-life batteries!
Norm - I think it is yet to be established that imperishable=immaterial. Certainly material AS WE know it now, yes.
One of the things I get out of the resurrection narrative is that God raises the dead - bodily - plus something else.
I’m not all mystical or anything - but creation and the resurrection are both categories that show we cannot be limiting of what God does.
I get a little stubborn here, too much perhaps, but I do think the NT draws a very definite comparison to the bodily yet changed resurrection of Christ, and OURS. I feel a bit invested. But I could be wrong,
Well, I would agree that there may be no convincing reason for some to believe that heaven has the same physical laws as the universe.
But I can’t believe that there is NO reason to believe heaven has the same physical laws as the universe.
The mere fact that biblical descriptions of what seems to be heaven mention physical things like streets, cities, gold, gates, and light suggests a reason.
Also, if the universe includes everything in existence, it includes heaven. I know of no evidence that any part of the universe is not affected by the same physical laws, e.g., gravity, governing the rest of the universe.
I agree. The word translated as “imperishable” in 1 Corinthians 15:42 is aphtharsia, and that Greek word has several meanings, some that do not connote “immaterial.”