I agree that this might make for an interesting discussion! I’ll kick it off by responding to what you said above, Ran. My understanding is that the immortal body with which the dead are to be raised will not necessarily “come from the same elements of the old body.” I think it can, but that it doesn’t have to. But did not the body with which Christ was raised come from the same elements of his old body? Yes, but the body that lay in the tomb was not merely reanimated (as was the case with Lazarus, for instance); it was changed completely. And it is because of the radical change that his corpse underwent in the tomb that I understand Christ’s immortal body to be completely distinct from it. And because I think this “change” defines the nature of the resurrection that Christ experienced - and not the continuity of the body itself (i.e., all the original matter in its original form that constituted the body that lay in the tomb) - I don’t think God necessarily has to use the exact same elements/particles that originally constituted a person’s mortal body when they died in order to recreate them at the resurrection; consequently, I don’t believe the resurrection of the dead necessarily has anything to do with tombs or the original body (and that’s why I think that Paul, when speaking of the resurrection of the dead, doesn’t speak of the dead in general as being raised from tombs or graves).
One implication of this view is that God could have (theoretically) raised Christ from the dead using completely different matter than was used. That is, God could have left the old body in the tomb and recreated Christ using matter that did not constitute his original body. However, we know he didn’t do this, because the tomb was empty; God chose to use the elements of Christ’s original body as the “stuff” which he caused to undergo the change by which Christ was raised as an immortal being. But once Christ’s original body underwent the change that it did, that which was then present in the tomb (and which left the tomb) was no longer his original body; it was something new and different. So, even if God uses all or most of the elements from a person’s original mortal body to recreate them in the resurrection, I think those elements will have been so radically altered/changed as to be completely distinct from what they formerly were. So I think the key issue in regards to the “continuity” of persons in the resurrection is not what they’re made of (either now or in the future), but the way in which what they’re made of is organized so as to recreate the same person that once existed (i.e., with their unique first-person perspective and memory). That’s where I think the continuity lies.
If I’m not mistaken, Scripture doesn’t actually state that people’s bodies will be raised (i.e., when the immortal resurrection is in view). I think it is the person who is raised, while the body is “changed.” We are not our bodies; we are simply constituted by our bodies. What makes us who we are as persons is our unique first-person perspective and memory. I’ve also heard (and someone please correct me if I’m mistaken on this) that our bodies are constituted by entirely different cells today than they were 7-10 years ago, and that they will be constituted by entirely different cells 7-10 years from now!
But that’s EXACTLY what happened with Christ, the first of the resurrected. His body was raised - and yes, changed - and the tomb was EMPTY.
People’s bodies will instantly changed at His return - there is no mention of their bodies being discarded and REPLACED.
You admit to the person being changed, but if they are bodiless they are not persons, they are dead. The change, then, is comprehensive change, not replacement.
What you and Christine are arguing for is reincarnation - coming back as something other than what we essentially were/are, while something else (a part of the essential) remains dead. But scripture doesn’t allow for that. Neither the soul nor the body remains dead in the new paradigm. Both of you are actually ceding half the victory to the enemy - but it should be clear from Paul’s writings and others that the continuity of persons is comprehensive - body AND soul.
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Both body and soul are redeemed from death, i.e. the whole person via the resurrection. Resurrecting a bodiless soul, or souless body are both impossibilities.
If one understands the resurrection, then Christ’s warning is quickly seen as not applying to post-mortem punishment but to death itself - where, for lack of redemption, both body and soul are essentially destroyed - or redeemed from death, both are resurrected to new life.
You and Christine seem to be saying that men can kill and destroy a body - when they did not destroy it - it will be resurrected. Scripture never suggests that our bodies are replaced, but always resurrected.
What about all of the countless dead whose bodies have returned to the elements? How can it be said that the same body possessed by a person at death will be raised, if that body no longer exists? Wouldn’t they require a new body?
Also, I think I need to clarify what I said earlier about the body not being raised. I do think that a body is raised. But I don’t think what is “raised” is the same body that was “sown” (as was the case with Lazarus and all who have been resurrected back to a mortal existence). For as Paul says, “What you sow is not the body that is to be” (1 Cor 15:37) - which seems to suggest that the body we possess at death is not the same body with which we are raised, even if it is composed of the same elements.
'Each kind of seed he gives its own kind of body" - “the splendor of earthly bodies” What Paul is saying is contrary to your conclusion. Paul is saying that the seed is not destroyed - he’s not giving death any quarter in all this. But you are. You’re saying that death destroyed the body and needs a replacement. The resurrection says the body was never destroyed but remains the seed for the perfected body of the resurrection. From splendor to splendor. The Gnostics didn’t think that was very ‘spiritual.’ Oh well.
The seed is not the plant but they are connected by their splendor - the one following the other. ‘We are fearfully and wonderfully made.’
How can it be said that the same body possessed by a person at death will be raised…?
We say it all the time when we look at the first of the resurrected! So how can it be said unless it’s true? Now, granted, the same body resurrected is better, perfect and immortal - but it is not a replacement, the way one would change a tire. Remember, the tomb was empty. Paul is explaining to us why it was empty.
Everywhere the resurrection is being discussed we are given this image of tombs and graves opening and the resurrected emerging. It’s figurative language like Ezekiel 37’s army of bones and is a expression of the truth of the resurrection of seeds planted but neither forgotten nor destroyed.
How can it be said that death did not destroy the bodies of all the countless people throughout the ages whose bodies have long since returned to dust and no longer exist? And Paul even says in 2Cor 5, “For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, age-during in the heavens.” Such language is perfectly consistent with the idea that either 1) the body that is “sown” is changed into a new, different body, or 2) a new body is simply created out of different matter (which would be the case for all whose bodies no longer exist). But this verse doesn’t seem very compatable with the view that the resurrection body is the same body that is “sown.”
Moreover, the seed that is seen when placed into the ground is actually the shell; the actual material that becomes the plant is inside that shell. After being “sown,” the shell itself dies and is cast off. It does not become the new plant, so there is no continuity between them (i.e., in the sense of the plant being made of the same material as the shell). This fact, I think, supports my view that the resurrection body is a different body altogether (even if the elements that constituted the original body were used in its creation, as was the case with Christ - and even then, I believe the elements themselves were radically altered).
Ran, you didn’t really address my objection to the view that the resurrection body is the same exact body as the original body. I think it’s a valid one. Again, here are the questions (the parts placed in bold are especially important):
Obviously, a resurrected body differs in quality from that which was planted in the ground - the seed - even though the seed is seemingly destroyed as it gives way to life. Again, you are championing reincarnation and not resurrection. And you still haven’t adequately dealt with the empty tomb - I don’t find the freshly dead vs the ancient dead argument all that compelling. ‘Changed’ does not scream ‘new from scratch’ to me.
The reason I find the difference between reincarnation and resurrection so important is that it answers: 1. The empty tomb. 2. The ‘rapture.’ 3. The swallowing up of death in victory - in the resurrection, it is the entire man who lives again. Death did not conquer Christ in body or soul.
So what do you call it when God creates a new body for a person because their former body returned to the dust and ceased to exist?
How have I not adequately dealt with the empty tomb? I believe God used the matter that constituted Christ’s mortal body to create his resurrection body (thus, the empty tomb). And I believe that God will do the same for all whose bodies have not been reduced to the elements from which they were made. For everyone else, God can use whatever matter he wants to create their resurrection bodies (and thereby recreate the persons themselves). Remember, our bodies do not make us who we are. The body I have now is not the same body I had when I was born, or even seven years ago. Every cell present in my body now is different from every cell that constituted my body at birth. Same goes for you. The only constant has been my first-person perspective and memory, and that’s what I expect to continue in the resurrection - not the cells that constituted my mortal body.
The person can still be the same person even if their body is “new from scratch.”
I agree that “the entire man” lives again. That which is essential to a person’s personal identity will live again. But I deny that anyone’s present body is essential to their unique, personal identity. God can resurrect the person without reanimating the body they possessed when they died.
It is a NEW Body, it is not the old body, it is not a body that has been ‘transformed’ or ‘changed’, it is WE, humanity, who are transformed and changed. We are given a new home, while the tent we live in turns back to the dust it came from. Where is the ‘body’ of Jesus?
1Co 15:35-38 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
Here is again from the CLV (Please note that this is not written in the future tense, with the exception of “the body that shall be”, but in the present, passive, indicative tense.)
1Co 15:35-38 But someone will be protesting, How are the dead being roused? Now with what body are they coming? Imprudent one! What you are sowing is not being vivified if it should not be dying. And, what you are sowing, you are not sowing the body which shall come to be, but a naked kernel, perchance of wheat or some of the rest. Yet God is giving it a body according as He wills, and to each of the seeds its own body.
Why is this written in the present, passive, indicative tense if Paul is referring to a future event?
If Paul is referring to a physical resurrection of physically dead bodies, whose “resurrection” will look exactly like that of Jesus’ physical resurrection then why would Paul even be anticipating that anyone would be asking this question? Why would they not know how the dead are raised and with what body they come?
Why is it that “the body that shall be” (the resurrect, spiritual, celestial body) “may chance of wheat or some other grain”? Why “wheat” and what, if anything, does that have to do with the parables Jesus told in Mat 13 with regard to the wheat and the tares?
And what about those “celestial” bodies? Why the sun, the moon and the stars (with each star differing from the other in glory)? What, if anything, does that have to do with “the stars” that are mentioned in the book of Revelation who are “the angels of the churches”?
1 Cor 15:44-50 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
This subject remains a mystery to me, but I can’t ignor the two statements underlined above. It is raised a “spiritual body” can mean two different things; first, it could mean that the new body is not physical; second, it could mean that our new body (or self) is not tempted by carnal things anymore. Or it could be some combination thereof.
The second statement - “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” - seems to support the first idea that our new bodies are not physical.
One must also ask, if Christ’s body is a physical one where is it right now? If He ascended up into the sky in a physical body, where is it now and how is it sustained? How could the earth sustain the resurrected bodies of all who have lived if they are physical bodies? How could a physical body “meet Him in the air”?
I don’t have answers, I only have questions on this subject.
I’m certainly no Greek scholar, but my understanding of the present, passive and indicative tense is as follows: the passive voice denotes the fact that the subject is being acted upon by an outside force, the indicative expresses certainty and fact (i.e., if something has occurred, is occurring or WILL OCCUR). So why the use of the present tense? Answer: Because it further emphasizes that the resurrection is certain to occur. Something may be spoken of as having happened in the past or as occurring in the present if it is certain that it will happen in the future (again, it’s called speaking proleptically). And that’s exactly how Paul speaks of the resurrection of the dead elsewhere - i.e., as an event that was not yet taking place, but which was certain to take place at a yet future time (e.g., Acts 24:15, CLV). And in 1Cor 15:50-54 Paul clearly refers to the resurrection of the dead as being an entirely future event, for it is represented as taking place when the “last trumpet” sounds, and not anytime before (and there is absolutely no indication that the “trumpet” was then sounding; see also 1Thess 4:13-18, where the sounding of the trumpet and the resurrection of the dead is also represented as taking place in the future, and not as a present, ongoing reality).
Moreover, when Paul speaks of the “resurrection of the dead,” he’s talking about all of the dead, not some of the dead (vv. 12-13, 22). So when Paul says, “For if the dead are not being roused, neither has Christ been roused” (v. 16) he’s talking about all of the dead, not a few here and there. But even according to your view, it is not true that all of the dead were collectively being roused at the time these words were written (however you understand the resurrection). Same goes for v. 34ff, which you quote. But if we understand his use of the present indicative as expressing future certainty, this becomes a non-issue. And I submit that, in view of what Paul says elsewhere concerning the time of the resurrection, that’s how we should understand it. This also explains why Paul could say that Christ both “abolished death” when he rose from the dead (2Tim 1:10) and that death, the last enemy, is “being abolished” (1Cor 15:26). Because death, the last enemy, is certain to be abolished as a result of Christ’s resurrection, it could be said that death was, even in Paul’s day, “being abolished” (though the actual time at which death will be “swallowed up in victory” corresponds with the sounding of the “last trumpet,” which is a future event).
Well according to my view, Christ’s resurrection was not merely a reanimation of his mortal body (as was the case with Lazarus), but the changing of his original body into another, different body (i.e., an imperishable, glorious, powerful, spiritual body). Moreover, the person or persons whom Paul represents as questioning how the dead are raised and the nature of the resurrection body, were likely questioning the truth of Christ’s resurrection as well. But it is evident that not all (or even most) of the people in the church at Corinth did, and that’s why Paul seeks to defend the truth of the resurrection of the dead by first reaffirming the truth of Christ’s own resurrection (which again, most did not question - though evidently “some” did). So, the problem he is addressing here in chapter 15 is that “some” (tis) but not all (and that’s key) were saying there was no resurrection of the dead. Thus, there were “some” (but not all) who no longer believed (or perhaps never did believe) that even Christ had been raised. Hence, Paul begins this chapter by affirming Christ’s resurrection. After that, Paul directs much of his argument against the “foolish” person(s) (who evidently didn’t even believe a resurrection was possible, which would include Christ’s), so as to strengthen the faith of those who did, but who might still be swayed by the influence of this skeptic (or skeptics).
Wheat was a common and well-known grain in that part of the world and served as an appropriate illustration of the point at hand. The fact that Jesus used it to convey a different truth in one of his parables does not in any way prove that Paul had Jesus’ parable in mind in v. 37. And if you think he did, I say prove it.
Because heavenly bodies are a good example of “glorious” things that are both numerous and differ from each other in glory, and thus they served to illustrate how each person’s resurrection body will be unique but no less glorious in its uniqueness. Moreover, Revelation probably wasn’t even written yet when Paul wrote 1Cor, so it’s highly unlikely Paul had (or could have) the “stars” of Revelation in mind. And even if Revelation had been written already, there is no reason to think that when Paul referred to stars, the sun and the moon, he was employing them as symbols for something else. Like I said before, Paul’s epistles and John’s Revelation are different genres of literature entirely. And unlike in Revelation, there is no contextual indication that Paul is using “stars” in a symbolic sense. Besides, Jesus spoke of “stars” falling from heaven in Matt 24:29 (as well as the sun being darkened and the moon not giving itse light), but he wasn’t using them to symbolize “the angels of the churches” or anything like that. Jesus was evidently ascribing the literal meaning to “stars,” “sun” and “moon” here, but he was simply speaking hyperbolically, just as the Hebrew prophets before him had used the image of cosmic upheaval when speaking of the violent overthrow of a people or nation.
Jesus Christ himself said that “the flesh profits nothing”
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Yet, Jesus’ tomb was EMPTY and Jesus had “a body of flesh and bones” after His resurrection.
So this means?
The flesh is “changed” in some way (which means that the flesh DOES profit)?
The flesh of this body returns to dust but God gives us a “new” body of flesh?
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (bodily) is meant to reveal something else, things that cannot be seen unless ‘typified’ through the physical resurrection of a physically dead body?
Of course my answer is #3, since Paul is speaking about those who ARE DYING, being VIVIFIED (present, passive, indicative tense) when he speaks about “the resurrection of the dead”. And I don’t believe that Jesus is sitting around somewhere in a physical body all by himself waiting for the rest of us to one day be resurrected and join him. I believe that he returned to the Father that he came from (SPIRIT) and now lives IN US (SPIRIT) joining us together in ONE BODY by ONE SPIRIT, which is why “the second man” is called THE LORD FROM HEAVEN and why “if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, for he cannot deny himself”. He is THE SPIRIT that binds us together and WE ARE his body (his ‘flesh’ and ‘bones’ - he being ‘the blood’ - LIFE - of the body).
Jesus Christ IS COME in the flesh - to condemn sin in the flesh. Amen?
Does that mean that there is no physical existence for us beyond this one? I don’t know and I don’t believe that the scriptures say. The scriptures are not written to address eternity; they are written to address those of us who live here in this world, so that we might “know God and Jesus Christ whom he sent” and HAVE “eternal life” (have life and have it MORE ABUNDANTLY).
All Jesus meant in John 6:63 was that his flesh was not able to impart spiritual life (i.e., touching his flesh or eating his flesh or thinking about his flesh, etc., does not change our character); it was the words that were an expression of his person that could do that. This verse has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s resurrection body or whether our resurrection body will be like his. We can be still raised with the same kind of body with which Christ was raised (flesh and bones and all) and Jesus’ words in John 6:63 still be true. Do you deny this?
The fact that the resurrection body has flesh and bones (though notice Jesus didn’t say “flesh and blood,” which is significant) has nothing to do with the flesh not profiting us in the sense that Christ said it doesn’t profit. It can still be true that we will be raised with the same kind of body with which Christ was raised and John 6:63 still be true.
Yes, either the flesh of our mortal body returns to the dust and God fashions a new body (with flesh and bones like Christ’s body) from other material, or our original body is changed into a new body (with flesh and bones like Christ’s body). And again, this fact would have nothing to do with Jesus’ words in John 6:63.
And so what if it does, atHisfeet? Seriously. The fact that Christ’s resurrection might have any number of secondary applications that reveal something about our Christian life (or what have you) doesn’t in any way negate the fact that we are to be raised with the same kind of body with which Christ was raised. You need to get past this simplistic “either/or” mentality and start thining in terms of “both/and.” I think it would help your theology out a lot.
See my previous post.
Well first, he’s not all by himself, for not only does he have God himself to keep him company, he has countless angels as well. So no, it would hardly be the case that Jesus is “all by himself.” Second, we are clearly told that Jesus would in fact be “waiting” after his ascension (Heb 10:13). If that just doesn’t “feel right” to you, or isn’t consistent with your allegorical understanding of what Jesus is doing right now, then take it up with Scripture.
The resurrection of the dead is only “future” for those who have not yet come to know “the power of His resurrection” and have not yet “passed” from death unto life. But I don’t see it as “past” or “future”; it simply “is”.
Paul speaks about “every man in his own order”, so how does the lend itself to all men being resurrected at the same time? He goes on to say Christ FIRST, THEN those who are His at His coming, THEN comes the end. So what does “at his coming” mean? Once to all? I see Christ’s “coming” as a fulfillment of Christ’s promise not to leave us comfortless, but to “come” and make His abode “in us”. And this is what Paul waited for, to see Christ formed “in them” because the hope of glory is “Christ in you”. This is how we are “delivered of the child” and is not Eve (THE CHURCH) “SAVED IN CHILDBEARING”? And are we not told to “watch” for his appearing, as Christ “comes” (the second time) “unto them that look for him” (coming “as a thief in the night” because he is coming to those who “sleep”)?
Then you still do not understand my view because I believe that ALL of the dead have been “collectively” raised, as ALL men are found IN HIM and HE IS RISEN. That is why “death” and “sleep” are used interchangeably. Those who “sleep” are reckoned “dead”, but they are “dead in Christ” (who IS RISEN). His whole body was raised, not just His head.
I never said that Paul had the parable in mind, I asked if WE shouldn’t see a connection. Are we not told to COMPARE spiritual things with spiritual in order to rightly divide the word of truth? And aren’t the scriptures supposed to interpret themselves (no prophesy of scripture being it’s own interpretation, and all that)?
If the spiritual body is likened to wheat and it is the wheat that is being gathered at the time of harvest, then when does the “change” from a natural body (bare grain) to spiritual body (wheat or some other) take place? You seem to believe it takes place “after” the harvest, but in the time of harvest (according to the parable) it is the wheat (that have been growing in the field) that are “being harvested”. You apparently see no connection, but that is what I was asking about.
See above. I never claimed that Paul had the stars in the book of Revelation in mind when he was writing his letter. Nor do I think that John has Paul in mind when he said he saw “an angel flying in the midst of heaven having the everlasting gospel to preach”. But I do think that they speak to each other.
The stars falling from heaven (spoken of by Jesus) could be likened to “angels which kept not their first estate” mentioned in Jude. They are MEN. So it seems to me that in all three cases (Paul, John and Jesus) the “stars” are men and we know (according to Rev) that the “the stars” are also “the angels of the churches”. So really we have a forth witness in Jude. And when it comes to the sun and the moon I believe it speaks to Christ and the prophets, particularly John the Baptist (again, men).
Is the “resurrection” that you think Paul had attained to (and which I think he had not yet attained) in Phil 3:11 the same kind of resurrection that Christ experienced? Because that’s the kind of resurrection in view in 1Cor 15.
From my 1Thess 4 thread (which I’d still like your thoughts on if you get the chance, especially v. 13 ):
In John 14:2-3 Christ is talking about a literal, bodily coming, for he says “I go…I will come again…” In other words, he was promising to return in the same sense that he would go (literally, bodily, etc.) See Acts 1:11, where the angels refer to the same personal, bodily return of Christ at some future time. In John 14:23 there is no indication that this would be a personal, bodily coming, since Christ says he and the Father would come to them and “make [their] home with [them].” This is obviously figurative language, whereas it is not so obviously the case in 14:2-3.
In John 14:2-3, Christ is talking about coming and taking his disciples to himself to be with him where he was going. And where was he going? Answer: to heaven, where the Father is. But in John 14:23, there is no indication that he would be taking his disciples anywhere; instead, Jesus and the Father go to where they are and remain with them there.
See the difference?
The coming for which people were said to “watch” and “be ready” for is not Christ’s coming to raise the dead and subject all to himself. It was his coming at the overthrow of Jerusalem (which was not a personal bodily coming, as was promised in Acts 1:11 and elsewhere).
When do you think all of the dead were collectively raised? And who makes up “all the dead” that you believe were collectively raised? And do you think Paul is talking about the “spiritually dead” in 1Cor 15:6?
Well in that case, no, we shouldn’t “see a connection” because it would be a violation of the context.
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with reading symbolic, allegorical meaning into words where there is none?
Jesus’ parable has nothing to do with the resurrection of which Paul is speaking in 1Cor 15. What makes you think it does? Just because they both mention “wheat?”
No, the stars of which Jesus speaks can’t be “likened” to anything without some contextual reason for doing so. Do you think Isaiah was talking about “angels which kept not their first estate” in Isaiah 13:10? How about in Isaiah 47:13? Do you think Ezekiel was referring to “men” in Ezekiel 32:7?
So basically, your only evidence that Paul is talking about “the angels of the churches” when he referred to “stars” in 1Cor 15, or to Christ and John the Baptist when he refers to “the sun and the moon,” is your own opinion. There is nothing in the context that even so much as hints that this is what Paul is talking about. Sounds like a “private interpretation to me” if there ever was one…
If Christ exists somewhere in a physical body, as a man, and he is the ONLY MAN to have ever been resurrected, then he is “the only man” (alone, by himself) wherever he is, is he not? Only those who do not believe in soul sleep or who do not believe that those who died before Christ’s resurrection were resurrected with him can claim that Christ (as a man) is not “alone” (in the sense of being “the only” physically resurrected man in existence - and if you thought I meant in any other sense, then that I would sure wonder why).
As far as my “simplistic mentality” is concerned I NEVER SAID it is “either/or” it is you who just simply ignores the fact that I have said repeatedly that I do not believe that “the spiritual body” is a “disembodied spirit”. In fact, I believe that it exist within “the natural body” (at least for those who still have a natural body). So perhaps it is just you who lacks a proper understanding of what it is I DO believe when you accuse me of saying that a spiritual body is a disembodied spirit. That is not how I see it at all and I have told you that several times already.
Perhaps this misunderstanding has arisen because I am just not expressing myself well enough or clearly enough for you to better understand me; perhaps it is because you just have too many preconceived notions about what it is you think I believe that you simply read whatever that is into whatever I write; perhaps you can’t even hear what I am saying because of your own belief in not only soul sleep, but the resurrection of the dead; or maybe it’s something else. I don’t know. But while I do not believe that our physical/natural bodies are resurrected (and neither do you, as I understand it) that doesn’t mean that the resurrected dead do not have bodies or that they cannot, at least, appear in physical bodies in a physical world. I simply do not “know” what eternity is like or where or HOW we will live/exist, except that we will be with the Lord and that God will be all in all. I don’t believe the scriptures say what eternity will be like and I don’t care to try and speculate. But if it consists of a physical world then I believe that we exist physically, in a physical body (and I don’t believe that we have to wait for this one to be resurrected to exist that way). OK?
Now, as far as Heb 10:13 is concerned, Christ waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool don’t mean that all men are dead and will remain so until all are made alive - at once. Some HAVE PASSED from death unto life and those who LIVE AND BELIEVE shall never die.
Don’t forget that Christ said “I am come to send fire on the earth” and it is “in the earth” that not only the righteous but much more the wicked and sinner are recompensed. And THE EARTH ~is~ HIS FOOTSTOOL and His FEET “are like unto fine brass, as if they burn in a furnace”.
So you can mock my allegorical understanding of scriptures all you want. It doesn’t bother me in the least, since I believe that I am doing what we are all told to do - rightly divide the word of truth by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, not by mixing the two which is what you seem to be telling me I need to be doing - though perhaps you just mean considering “both” but independently of each other, which is exactly what I AM doing. I do not ignore or deny the fact that men die physically. We do. But, again, that which is seen is meant to reveal to us those things that are not seen (physical death vs spiritual death… water baptism vs the baptism of holy spirit and fire… Seventh Day Sabbath vs TODAY when you hear my voice and harden not your hearts and enter into MY REST… though shalt not kill vs he who hates his brother is a murderer… etc. etc. etc. I do not “negate” the natural by looking upon the spiritual and seeking a proper understanding of the spiritual.
So, rest assured, that I do take ALL of my beliefs up with scripture, as that is exactly from where they have ALL been derived - RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY. And you might do well to acknowledge that it just “might” be possible (just " maybe’, mind you ) that it is your understanding that is lacking and not mine. Or maybe we are both lacking in understanding. But either way, unless you are of the opinion that you have it “all figured out” already and you are here “only to teach” because you are not in need of any correction when it comes to scriptural matters, perhaps you could keep an open mind and not make such rash judgments about my beliefs or about my mental capacity.
Yes, I do believe that Jesus is the only man in heaven at present. And your statement about Christ “sitting around somewhere in a physical body all by himself” seemed to (implictly, at least) convey the idea that Christ would somehow be lonely or bored if he were the only man to have been resurrected. So I was just pointing out how this would in no way be the case.
I am familiar with the view that the spiritual body resides within the natural (this was a popular view among the Universalists of the 19th century), but this is certainly the first time, to my knowledge, that you’ve affirmed it as being your view. But I guess I should have just asked, huh? So at this point, to avoid further confusion as to what it is you believe, could you please explain exactly what you think Paul was talking about when he spoke of the “resurrection of the dead” in 1Cor 15?
It was my understanding that you believed Christ to have been talking about “spiritual” life and death in John 5:25 and 11:25-26, and not literal post-mortem existence. That’s my understanding of these verses, at least (with the exception of Christ’s statement “I am the resurrection,” which I see as an affirmation that he is the one who is to raise the dead). I don’t see them as being relevant to what happens after we physically die; I think Christ addresses that topic elsewhere. But based on your above statement, it would seem you do see them as relevant to our literal post-mortem existence. So again, to avoid further confusion on my part, could you please clarify your view on these verses?
No, I’m not here “only to teach”; I joined this forum to learn as well as share my thoughts. I am very much aware of the fact that I am lacking in understanding and that I don’t have it “all figured out.” But I’m also here to defend to the best of my ability what I believe to be true (at least, until it is shown to be false!), which is what you’re doing as well, right? Also, I’m sorry you understood my statement about the “simplistic either/or mentality” as having anything to do with your “mental capacity,” because that’s not at all what I meant by it; I think you’re a very intelligent person. I just have some major disagreements with regards to your theology and method of interpretation.
Ah, but I never said ‘lonely’ or ‘bored’ I only said “alone” and said it, specifically, in relation to him being the only one with a physical body. Sorry if that was not clear. But in order for Jesus to exist physically, he would have to exist in a physical world. Right? With no other “men” in it? So I can see how his being “lonely” and “bored” might be a safe assumption to make. But, either way, how would you like to live alone for thousands of years? How long do you think that you would last living in this world all by yourself, with absolutely not other physical contact with anyone?
Maybe not for you, I don’t know, but I think the whole reason that some people demand that the spiritual body be a physical body is not just because of Christ’s physical resurrection but because they cannot even image a less than physical existence, with our current existence being to tightly connected to our flesh. But if God is spirit/invisible and the angels are spirit/invisible and Jesus is the only physical being in this physical world that he lives in, then what kind of existence is that for a man? Didn’t God say that it is not good for the man to be alone?
Really? I thought I had said many times that, to me, it’s about the flesh vs the spirit, the outward man vs the inward man, the first man vs the second man. I thought I had also already said that I do not believe that Paul is talking about a physical resurrection of the physically dead in 1 Cor 15 - other than his use of Christ’s physical resurrection to teach us about “the resurrection of the dead” AFTER A SPIRITUAL TRUTH (as it relates to those who are “dead” IN SIN)? I haven’t said that already? If not, I apologize; but I’m pretty sure that I have. But maybe it was in response to someone else and I just assumed that you read it as well. If so, then I hope this clarifies my position on 1 Cor 15.
Yes, it is THROUGH HIM that we HAVE LIFE, making HIM “the resurrection and the life”. Not sure if you are seeing Him being “the resurrection” by being “the one to raise the dead” from a purely external vantage point (standing outside of a physical grave, as he was at Lazarus’ tomb), or not? But I see Him as THE SPIRIT by which “the dead” are “quickened” to life, THE SPIRIT of Christ/God that is “in us”. So I think that this must be the application being spoken of here.
Why wouldn’t “eternal life” be connected to our postmortem resurrected existence? If the wages of sin is death and that death is NOT PHYSICAL, but SPIRITUAL and we have already passed FROM THAT DEATH UNTO LIFE and Christ says “and ye shall never die” why should we think that we will die when this physical body dies? How does that not make Christ a liar? You are claiming that not only do we die physically at death but that we cease to live spiritually, as well. Are you not? Is that what Christ said? You will never die until you physically die? And if the wages of sin is spiritual death and we have been redeemed/resurrected from that, why are we put back to sleep/death?
Yes. that is why I post in forums as well. And to be honest I seem to have a harder time in UR groups than among those who do not believe in UR. Maybe because where I expect to find a lot of “common ground” I, sometimes, find very little. And I’m not sure why but I think I expect those who believe in UR to react to those differences differently from the way those who do not believe in UR react to the message of UR and that is oftentimes not the case. Maybe that’s why I’ve always felt more comfortable (though maybe that’s not exactly the right word for it) in forums where I am in the vast minority than in those dedicated more to the UR message. I guess I’d rather argue over the fact that God is the Saviour of all men then argue over the details of how he is going to do that with those who already believe and understand that he will. So I think I take less offense over the former and more over the latter. I don’t know. But I do apologize if I am misreading the intent of some of your comments. And FWIW, I’m not offended. I just didn’t want to reach the point where I started to be. Cuz then I might have to “reply in kind” and I wouldn’t want to have to do that. (j/k)