Todd.
Jesus died physically and spirtually and was raised in his immortal, glorified, spiritual body. Yes, flesh and blood ( natural, physical bodies) cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
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?
-
Something else?
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?
Moreover, the angels in Jude most likely aren’t “men.” Index to Gregory MacD’s EU
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… 
Aaron,
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.
Correct.
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) 
Yeah, I realize you didn’t actually say those words; that’s why I used the words “convey” and “implicitly.” And again, I don’t see how his being lonely or bored might be a “safe assumption to make” when the fact that he’s surrounded by countless personal beings - especially God himself! - is taken into account. I mean really, how bored or lonely could anyone be sitting next to the God of the universe?
Only if Jesus were the only person in heaven would he be “alone” there. And he certainly isn’t “living in this world all by himself.” And if Jesus gets “skin hunger” while sitting in the very presence of God then I suppose he could hug an angel. 
Christ was raised with a “spiritual body,” and it was physical and tangible (though certainly its exact nature is beyond our present understanding). So I believe the “spiritual body” of all who are to be raised/changed is going to be physical and tangible as well. “Spiritual” doesn’t mean ethereal, or immaterial/intangible. N.T. Wright has this to say on the nature of the resurrection body: “The word ‘spiritual’ in 1 Corinthians 15 comes from the Greek pneuma. But the word is pneumatikos. Greek adjectives that end in -kos do not describe the substance out of which something is made. They describe the force that is animating the thing in question. It’s the difference between saying on the one hand, ‘Is this a wooden ship or a steel ship?’ and saying on the other hand, ‘Is this a nuclear-powered ship or a steam-powered ship?’ And the sort of adjective it is of the latter type; it’s a spirit-powered body.”
And yes, I don’t know how anyone can conceive of their existing as anything but a physical, embodied being. And where are we told that angels don’t have physical bodies? Jacob wrestled with one, didn’t he? (Gen 32:24-25; Hos 12:4) And again, Jesus is not “alone.” He has countless personal beings with whom he can enjoy fellowship.
To my knowledge, you never said you believed that the resurrection involved a spiritual body that resides within the natural body. Simply talking about the “outward man” vs. the “inward man,” or denying a physical resurrection, doesn’t necessarily convey or imply this idea. There are many who do not hold to a physical resurrection of the dead but don’t hold to the view that the spiritual body is something that resides within the natural body, and is freed from the natural body at death. Most pantelists, for instance, don’t believe this (for they don’t see the “spiritual body” as having anything to do with our post-mortem existence). And being spiritually raised from a state of being “dead in sin” does not have anything at all to do with the idea that the spiritual body resides within the natural body.
Again, could you please summarize your view of what the “resurrection of the dead” of which Paul speaks in 1Cor 15 means?
I don’t think “eternal life” (which we receive and enjoy by faith in Christ) has anything to do with whether or not we have any kind of post-mortem existence. The expression literally means “the life of the age,” or “life age-during.” Aionios is an adjective form of the Greek noun aion and means “pertaining to, or belonging to, an age.” To what “age” does the “life of the age” pertain or belong? Answer: the age that was to begin whenever the age in which Christ and his disciples were living, ended (Matt 24:3). It is this then-future age that was referred to as “the age to come,” and associated with “the life of the age” (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Heb 6:6; etc.). And what age was “to come” at this time? Answer: the age of the Messianic reign, which was to commence with Christ’s coming in his kingdom (Matt 16:28; Matt 24-25). I believe the age of the Messianic reign ends when (or sometime shortly after) the resurrection of the dead takes place, since this event is represented as occurring at the end of Christ’s reign (1Cor 15:22-28).
Moreover, the “life of the age” is simply knowing (i.e., experientially) “the only true God and Jesus Christ” (John 17:3). It is to be one in whom God and Jesus have (figuratively speaking) “made their home.” Receiving this “life” does not procure for one a post-mortem existence (and not receiving this life before physical death doesn’t mean one doesn’t have a post-mortem existence). There’s simply no causal relationship between our having or not having the “life of the age” and our having or not having a post-mortem existence. And this fact doesn’t “make Christ a liar” because when Christ said “and you shall never die” (literally, “you shall not be dying for the age”) he wasn’t talking about physical death; he was talking about spiritual death. Those who receive spiritual life and then die physically, while temporarily unable to enjoy the spiritual life they received prior to physical death, cannot be said to have spiritually died. So it would still be true that, while they were living and believing on Christ, they didn’t die (i.e., spiritually) “for the age.”
Forgot to include this in my previous post: You previously stated you believed “that ALL of the dead have been ‘collectively’ raised.” So what I’d like to know is this: when do you think all of the dead were collectively raised? And what does it mean for them to have been collectively raised?
Do you think we do not even now sit next to the God of the universe? How is that the same as personal, physical contact with other human beings?
And there is no difference between the physical companionship shared between humans and one’s communion with God? 
According to scripture the Last Adam was made A QUICKENING SPIRIT. And according to Jesus Christ himself, A SPIRIT HAS NOT FLESH AND BONES (as He DID when He appeared after His resurrection).
So why “might” Jesus have appeared in a body of flesh and bones after His resurrection, even “if” He doesn’t presently reside in a physical body (other than OURS) in a physical world (other than OURS)?
And that can’t apply to our physical bodies, once we have been “resurrected from the dead” after a spiritual truth (which is what I believe Paul is talking about)? Especially when Paul tells us that we are to know NO MAN after the flesh because we are NOT IN THE FLESH, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwells in us?
I don’t know that Jacob physically wrested with anyone. Nor am I certain that every ‘angel’ mentioned in the OT is a spirit being who took human form. But still, as I already pointed out, my reference was to MEN and the fact that you believe that Jesus the THE ONLY “MAN” in existance wherever it is He resides. If you want to make a bigger deal out of it than I did, knock yourself out.
I am pretty certain that I mentioned both together but I’m not going to go find where I did or argue with you over it if I didn’t.
Seriously? 
You are the one who went to my blog and even posted a link to it here in this forum aren’t you? So between that and everything that I have already said here in my posts, you still don’t know how I see it? I do not see Paul speaking about a physical resurrection in 1 Cor 15. You do. What else do you want me to say? I addressed at least half of the chapter ‘line by line’ in my blog and have discussed it several times here. I’ve tried to answer all of your questions and I think that I have. What do you want me to address that I haven’t?
I know what “eternal life” is; it’s still “the resurrection of the dead” (even “the resurrection” from “the wages of sin”, which is spiritual death, not physical death). So if you see no connection between the two, that is fine; but I don’t believe that one needs to be resurrected more than once. Neither do I believe that anyone is still waiting TO BE “resurrected”. I believe that what we are striving to know is THE POWER of His resurrection (that we, as His body, HAVE PART IN - even we do not all know it yet).
You might think it’s “figurative” but I fully believe that GOD (who is SPIRIT) is very capable of “actually” abiding IN ME. And because HIS WORD (Jesus Christ, in the flesh) returned TO HIM, and the glory that He had WITH HIM in the beginning, I believe that Jesus Christ (made A QUICKENING SPIRIT) also “actually” abides IN ME. And because of this I can know THE POWER of His resurrection and have LIFE, that life that is IN THE SON.
The same argument I used to use to support my “the dead are dead” claims - back when.
But that doesn’t change the fact that physical death is not the penalty for sin, nor a result of sin. Therefore it is not the death that we need to be saved from and I do not see why one needs to “be dead” after they physically die in order to be “resurrected from the dead”. Nor does it address the face that Jesus Christ IS THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE and that those who abide IN HIM are ALIVE (though some SLEEP). Even though you don’t believe that physical death in the penalty for sin (or do you?) you seem to believe that it is physical death from which we need to be resurrected. I don’t. Sin is condemned IN THE FLESH and the veil that stands between us and the Holy of Holies (that has been rent in twain from the top to the bottom by the blood of Jesus Christ) is THE FLESH. Besides, even Paul said that our desire IS NOT TO BE “unclothed” but to be CLOTHED UPON - that MORTALITY might be swallowed up OF LIFE.
I know that you see ALL of these verses differently and you think that Paul just didn’t want to die physically, but I still disagree.
But I wonder, how do you see Isa 26:16-21?
Isa 26:16-21 LORD, in trouble have they visited thee, they poured out a prayer when thy chastening was upon them. Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in pain, and crieth out in her pangs; so have we been in thy sight, O LORD. We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen. Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the LORD cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.
When does the Lord “come out of His place” to punish the inhabitants of the earth?
I see that as the coming of Christ (the Word MADE FLESH) which is why I believe NOW is the judgment of this world (just as Christ said). If that is so, then “the earth” NO MORE covers her slain (and even then I don’t believe that “the earth” and “her slain”, those who “dwell in dust” are talking about physically dead corpses in physical graves, but those in these “earthly” bodies (dust) who are “dead” (in sin).
We are THE BODY of Christ, right? And Christ IS RISEN, right? I believe that we are risen WITH CHRIST. I believe that just as all men DIED IN ADAM, all have been MADE ALIVE IN CHRIST, though some still “sleep”. Spiritually speaking they are still “dead” in sin, but according to Christ, the “dead” SLEEP.
I see being baptized INTO HIS DEATH (which I believe we all have been) as “the second death” (the “first” being when we died IN ADAM) and it is though “the second death” (by being found IN HIM, who has the keys of death and of hell) that we are “resurrected from the dead” (with Him, who is THE RESURRECTION and THE LIFE).
athisfeet.
Aaron37: I have no idea were you get your theology from, but it is simply amazing reading some of the doctrines on this discussion board that are being pushed that are unbiblical. I have never seen anything like it. Your only baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection when you are born again. Do you know what being born again means? Do you understand why we need to be born again? Have you heard " If you are born once you will die twice and if you are born twice you will die once"? The first death is physical death( inherited from Adam’s fall). The second death is everyone who is not found in the Lamb’s book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire with the devil, false prophet and demons separated from God for eternity.( Rev 20:10-15) You have to be born again to have your name recorded in the lambs book of life, or you will suffer the second death. You experience the second death because you did not experience the second birth( born again by faith) and are spiritually dead and will be separated from God forever.
The first death is not physical death. Adam (man) died physically because MAN IS MORTAL. Man is not mortal because of sin; man is mortal because God created us mortal. From dust we were taken and to dust we shall return. Do you not understand that Adam (man) was formed OUT OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND?
God told that Adam (man) that IN THE DAY that Adam partook of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam was “die”. Adam (man) “died” IN THE DAY that Adam “sin”. Sin WHEN IT IS FINISHED brings forth DEATH (James 1:15). THAT is the “death” that has been passed onto all men, for all men have sinned.
As far as “the second death” goes and my belief that this has to do with being baptized into the death of Jesus Christ (the last Adam / THE SECOND MAN), “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” (Rom 6:3)
You may think that this applies only to believers but I do not. Jesus said: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.” And if you read Eph 2 you will see that both Jew and Gentile have reconciled to God through the body of Christ, making ONE NEW MAN.
There is only one body, Aaron. All have baptized by ONE SPIRIT into ONE BODY. (1 Cor 12:13, Eph 4:4)
Jesus Christ is the light that lighteth EVERY MAN that cometh into the world and as many as receive him and believe in His name, to them he has given “the power to become the SONS of God, who are born “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”. (John 1:13) That doesn’t keep those who do not yet believe on His name from being his children, Aaron. God is the Father of all. (Mal 2:10, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph 4:6)
Christine, at this time, I still see each man receiving their individual resurrected bodies, However, I believe that which you wrote above, is profound for it’s truth stated in simplicity.
Thank you for the simplicity in which you express yourself. I would also hope others here would take note of your method. You go girl!
John
Christine.
John and anyone else can cheer you on all they want, but it does not change the fact your views are unbiblical. You fail to grasp the biblical truth of being in Christ by believing and receiving Jesus’ finished work on the cross… You fail to grasp the biblical truth not all are God’s children. ( Eph 2:3; John 8:42-44; 1John 4:1-4) God is the Father of creatures and creation… You have to be born into the family of God to be His child( that only comes by getting born again by faith). If you don’t respond by faith to God’s grace your as lost as lost can be and running towards separation from God forever( Rev 20:10-15). You fail to grasp what it means to be born again or reborn spiritually and why this new birth is essential to your salvation. The doctrines that are being created on this discussion board profit no one. Grace by itself without a positive response of faith will profit you nothing and will kill you.
Btw, Mormons have no concept to what it means to be born again. They have no idea why the new birth is essential to salvation. Without the new birth you are as lost as the day is long.
Not literally as Christ does at present, no. Do you not see a difference between Christ’s being raised from the dead and his being seated at God’s right hand (Eph 1:21) and our being “raised up with [Christ]” and “seated with him in the heavenly places” (Eph 2:5-6)? Is it not obvious to you that the former is literal and the latter is figurative?
Do you think Christ enjoys physical contact with other human beings at present? If not, why should it be a problem for me that he doesn’t?
Of course there’s a difference. But I fail to see how this is an argument against Christ having a physical body and being the only human being in heaven right now. While “physical companionship shared between humans” is wonderful and good, I doubt it tops enjoying communion with God in his immediate presence in heaven. And it’s not like Christ is never going to get to enjoy physical companionship with other humans ever again, so unless Christ has an unspiritual lack of patience while he’s waiting for the time when the dead are to be raised, then I hardly doubt the wait is adversely affecting his present happiness in God’s presence.
It’s evident that Paul is not teaching that Christ does not have a physical body when he refers to him as a “life-giving spirit,” since Christ, as a resurrected man, has a body of “flesh and bones” (which you seem to admit he possessed at some point, though I could be wrong). And since we are not told that Christ would or did discard the body with which he was raised (why would he?), it is likely that Paul’s calling Christ a “spirit” is to be understood in a figurative sense. Paul is probably alluding to the “breath (spirit) of life” that God breathed into Adam that made him a “living soul” (Gen 2:7) and which was in all living, breathing things (Gen 6:17). This would certainly fit nicely with the immediate context. But I doubt that even you would affirm that Christ is literally the breath/spirit that God breathed into Adam to make him a “living soul.” Just like God (who is the only Being in Scripture unequivocally said to be “spirit” - John 4:24) breathed into Adam the breathe of life making him a “living soul,” so Christ is going to impart life (i.e., immortality) to the dead at the end of his reign. It is in this sense that Christ is a “life-giving spirit.” Does this mean Christ doesn’t also give spiritual life to people who are spiritually dead? No, of course not. But that is not Paul’s emphasis here in chapter 15.
Are you suggesting that Christ wasn’t really raised with a physical body? Or that he doesn’t currently reside in a physical body?
Do you think that when Paul said, “we know no man after the flesh” he was denying that Christ possessed a physical body?
It would seem from Gen 32:24-25 that Jacob and the angel were involved in physical contact: “And a man wrestled with [Jacob] until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint and he wrestled with him” (Gen 32:24-25). And to say that this angel did not actually possess but merely “appeared” with a physical body is to beg the question.
If by “spirit being” you mean a being without a physical body, where are we told that angels do not have physical bodies of some sort? There are a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise.
Yes, seriously. I thought I understood your view from reading your blog, but in light of more recent statements you’ve made on this forum, I’ve not quite sure how exactly you understand the resurrection of the dead in 1Cor 15. For instance, you said you believed that all the dead were collectively raised at some point in the past, but in your blog you seem to be saying that not everyone is raised at the same time (or at all). For instance, you say in your blog, “Those who are “babes” in Christ have “the earnest of the spirit” and they are “YET CARNAL”. They have not yet gone on unto perfection. They have not been delivered of THE CHILD and had Christ formed IN THEM,” and “Not all go on unto perfection and pass from death unto life (attaining THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, through THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST).” Contrast these statements with the following: “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.”
Also, as far as I can tell, your blog doesn’t reveal your understanding of what the “spiritual body” (which you believe resides within the natural body) has to do with the resurrection of the dead. As I’ve said before, one position is that the resurrection takes place for every person at physical death, when the spiritual body is thought to be released from the natural body. But this evidently isn’t your view; you seem to believe that the resurrection of the dead is the goal of our present Christian walk in which full spiritual maturity/perfection is reached, and you seem to make it equivalent to our being “born again” and having Christ “born in us” (which, as far as I can tell, doesn’t have anything necessarily to do with anyone’s post-mortem existence). But at the same time, you seem to believe the resurrection of the dead is a past event that embraced all the dead. So I’m just requesting some clarity on your position.
Again, I don’t read anything in 1Cor 15 that would suggest that the resurrection of the dead is not the same kind/nature of resurrection experienced by Christ on the third day. There is no indication that Paul is talking about a literal, physical resurrection for Christ and something entirely different for the rest of mankind. You can talk about spiritual death and spiritual life all you want, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the context that indicates Paul was addressing this topic in 1Cor 15. And I demand proof that the resurrection of the dead spoken of by Paul in 1Cor 15 and “eternal life” are equivalent.
Jesus Christ is an embodied being presently sitting at God’s right hand. How can he literally be abiding in anyone? The fact is, he can’t - just like he can’t literally be “born” in anyone. Literally, Jesus was born of his mother Mary nearly 2,000 years ago.
And yet it hasn’t lost any of its force; it’s still fatal to your present view. The fact remains that there is no causal relationship between our possessing the spiritual life of which Christ speaks in John 5 and 11, and our having some kind of post-mortem existence (whether embodied or otherwise). Our post-mortem existence depends entirely on our being raised just as Christ was raised, and has nothing at all to do with whether or not we have “passed from death to life” in a spiritual sense. Where is your proof that having spiritual life now by faith in Christ is in any way causally related to our having a conscious, post-mortem existence after we physically die?
Where have I said that physical death is “the penalty for sin?” While certainly a premature death can be a result of sin, I have never asserted that the “wages of sin” is physical death. I believe just as strongly as you do that it’s spiritual death. But this fact neither proves you right nor proves me wrong. Physical death can still be an “enemy” that needs to be destroyed without its also being the “wages of sin.” The fact that the death of his friend Lazarus caused Jesus himself to weep flies in the face of your view that physical death is not something from which we need to be saved. If Christ needed to be saved from physical death (Heb 5:7), how much more do we? And what do you think Paul meant when he wrote that those who had fallen asleep in Christ had “perished” if Christ had not been raised (1Cor 15:18)?
Again, your argument simply does not follow. The fact that spiritual death is the “wages of sin” from which we need to be saved does not negate the fact that physical death is also something from which mankind needs to be saved. It’s almost as if the moment you learned or rediscovered in a profound way that spiritual death was the wages of sin (and thus something of consequence from which we need to be saved by receiving spiritual life), you became unable to see physical death as something that, apart from a resurrection like Christ’s, is equally “serious” in regards to keeping us from experiencing the life for which we were created. This is what I meant when I spoke of the “either/or mentality.” It’s like having a set of scales with one side reading “spiritual death” and the other, “physical death” - and whereas I understand Scripture to “weight” them as being more or less equal in importance, you’ve put a 10 ton weight on the “spiritual death” side and a mere feather on the other. But I see no scriptural justification for doing that, and I think that doing so forces one to do some major interpretive and theological gymnastics when coming to passages like 1Cor 15 or 1Thess 4:13-18, or simply when considering the meaning and implications of Christ’s death and resurrection.
I mean do you really think that when Christ’s disciples realized that their master was alive again after being crucified, dead and buried, their joy and wonder and zeal to proclaim this fact was due to the “allegorical application” they understood it as having? Is that why they exposed themselves to ridicule, persecution and death in order that this good news might be believed on by as many people in the world as possible? I doubt that’s what you think (but if it is, I guess we’re at an impasse and we just need to agree to disagree). But if that’s not what you think, then it would seem that the fact of Jesus’ physical, bodily resurrection to immortality was of much greater importance, and was more inherently meaningful, to Jesus’ apostles (as well as to all of their converts) than it is to you. To understand Christ’s resurrection as little more than an “object lesson” for people to help them better understand spiritual death and life is, I think, to empty the gospel of its life-changing power.
No, I believe that both spiritual death AND physical death are states from which we need to be saved. Both/and not either/or. I don’t read anything in Scripture that suggests that being saved from spiritual death has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not we have any kind of post-mortem existence - and since I don’t see Scripture as teaching that our hope for “life after death” rests on anything but the fact that Christ rose from the dead as the firstfruits of those who sleep, I believe your theology to be inadequate. The fact that sin was “condemned in the flesh” and the curtain of the temple was torn in two (which I agree signifies our spiritual access to God made possible by Christ’s death) is a wonderful truth I hold dear, but it doesn’t negate the need we have for a literal, physical resurrection. And I really don’t think you’ve proven that it does.
And what did Paul mean when he spoke of being “unclothed?” Answer: physically dead in the literal grave. And what did he expect to be “clothed upon” by after his “earthly home” was destroyed? Answer: a new, imperishable body (1Cor 15:35-49). How can you understand the “spiritual body” of 1Cor 15 as referring to the body we will have after death, but not understand Paul to be talking about that body here? And if I misunderstand you on this, I implore you to take the time and clarify your position for me. Even if I disagree with you, I don’t WANT to misunderstand you.
I certainly don’t think Paul wanted to stay dead, no. Do you?
I think both the context and the genre allows us to view this “resurrection” in a non-literal sense, and that’s how I’ve always understood it. But the fact that Isaiah could use the imagery of bodily resurrection to speak of Israel’s deliverance as a nation suggests to me that a hope in this kind of resurrection was not foreign to the Jewish people (though it would be many years before “life and immortality” would be “brought to light” by Christ actually triumphing over death). In other words, while I don’t believe Isaiah was in this passage directly prophesying concerning the literal resurrection of the dead (as I think he does in Isaiah 25:6-8), I don’t think he would have used it as an image of hope and joy for the nation of Israel if the Jewish people had no belief in a literal resurrection for those who had physically died (Job 14:7-15; Psalm 16:9-11; Psalm 17:15; Isaiah 25:6-9; Hosea 13:14; cf. Heb 11:35).
Anytime a people or nation is judged by God.
Aaron, I really don’t care what you think you know about Mormons and what they believe, but my beliefs have not one thing to do with my Mormon background and I don’t appreciate you trying to use that against me. I am not here to argue with you over Mormons or their doctrines. So make what ever false assumption you want about my history, but know that they are just that - FALSE. So think what you want, but my beliefs do not originate in Mormonism. I have almost nothing in common with them.
As far as the scriptures you posted, I’m not sure what you think they prove since we are ALL “by nature the children of wrath”, so how that proves that “not all are the children of God” is beyond me. God is the Father and Creator OF ALL. Period! So perhaps you need to study more about the difference between A CHILD and A SON. One must be “delivered of the child” (by having Christ formed in them) in order to be called A SON of God. But it is THE CHILDREN of God who are given the power TO BECOME SONS. And it is not by our will, but the will OF GODthat we are “born again”. So if you think that you can take credit for your own faith and your own salvation, then maybe you need to think again; as it is BY GRACE, THROUGH FAITH (the faith OF JESUS CHRIST) that we are saved.
As far as being “lost” is concerned. We were ALL “lost”. Christ came to seek and the save THE LOST and the Good Shepherd leave the 99 who are not lost to go and seek the ONE that is, UNTIL HE FINDS IT. Since when does the Shepherd go looking for his sheep and then, when he finds it, ask it if it “wants” to be found and return to the fold?
Besides, are you aware of the fact that the word translated “lost” in Luke 19:10 is apollumi? The same word translated “perish” 33 times and “destroy” 26 times, as in those who “perish” in Luke 13:3 (and elsewhere)?
Christine.
Aaron is catching you contradicting yourself what you believe…example
Yes, seriously. I thought I understood your view from reading your blog, but in light of more recent statements you’ve made on this forum, I’ve not quite sure how exactly you understand the resurrection of the dead in 1Cor 15. For instance, you said you believed that all the dead were collectively raised at some point in the past, but in your blog you seem to be saying that not everyone is raised at the same time (or at all). For instance, you say in your blog, “Those who are “babes” in Christ have “the earnest of the spirit” and they are “YET CARNAL”. They have not yet gone on unto perfection. They have not been delivered of THE CHILD and had Christ formed IN THEM,” and “Not all go on unto perfection and pass from death unto life (attaining THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, through THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST).” Contrast these statements with the following: “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.”
I have nothing against you, but your theology, IMO, is unbiblical and profits no one. Christine, would you please explain to me what being born again means to you and why we need the new birth?