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.”
That’s true; but of course there is also zero evidence that it does not. I don’t pretend to even know how to discuss that question. 
And is there an ethereal heaven somewhere? Or are we going to inhabit this world, and perhaps many others, in our life after life after death? I personally feel that THIS is our home; created for us specifically and lovingly, and will be perfect for us in our material+ immortal lives. I have no proof of that, except for the hints here and there such as Genesis; the world was pronounced ‘Very Good’ as our abode. We need nothing else!
Ok, this doesn’t advance the thread one bit lol but felt good to say.
To me “imperishable” does not mesh with “spiritual” , it only seems to make sense describing a natural or physical object thus “supernatural” makes more sense to me. In other words why would Paul bother saying a spiritual body is imperishable, when there is nothing perishable.
In Revelation, New Jerusalem, which is thought to be, or to represent, heaven, is described as having roads, gates, and walls. Roads, gates, and walls make no sense in a world without gravity.
So, it seems at least gravity is a law that affects life in heaven. That alone shows it is not true that there is zero evidence that heaven has the same physical laws as our universe.
But you just said it! A body that is a spirit is indeed imperishable.
Paul may be simply emphasizing that point by saying more about what it means to be a body that is a spirit, as distinguished from a conventional body that is not a spirit.
I agree that the purpose of Revelation is not to teach physical laws. However, the description of New Jerusalem can still be useful in determining what conditions exist there. And the description reveals physical laws to help answer your criticism. That description makes it clear that gravity operates there.
See, now you are changing your claim, which is “There’s zero evidence that heaven has the same physical laws as our universe.”
If just one physical law found in heaven is also found in our universe, then your claim is false. It is false because even one law in common means it is not true that there is zero evidence that heaven has the same physical laws as our universe.
BECAUSE he was alluding to COVENANT REALITIES.
Unlike the perishable and passing OLD covenant (2Cor 3:11; Heb 8:13) the NEW covenant was imperishable and lasting, aka eternal — NT eschatology is relative to the end of the OLD covenant age; the NEW covenant age knows NO end. This life, our world, carries on ad infinitum continuously populating existence into the life beyond, into which each of us steps via biological demise, i.e., our own physical death.
You’re totally missing the woods for the trees. Of course the visually optic nature of Revelation’s LANGUAGE uses IMAGERY cognisant of their experience… anything less and the message would have been totally incomprehensible.
I have no idea how what you are saying relates to what I have said.
Well for someone of your mental acumen that really surprises me. So let’s then dial it back a bit to this basic assumption…
Does this, your basic tenet, actually stack up to biblical reason?
IF you accept the traditional view of Adam (and the rest of the created order for that matter) pre-fall, he was imperishable… your logic thereby suggests he was in no way material but immaterial; really?? Thus when he sinned he became material, i.e., perishable. Again, really?