While I’m very much inclined to side with you in your discussion with Aaron(37), I don’t see why it’s necessary to believe that, because some “angels” are human, all “angels” should be understood as such. I think there is enough Biblical evidence to believe that 1) there is a distinct class of non-human entities that function as “angels” for God, and 2) Peter and Jude were alluding to an (uninspired) extra-biblical story involving such non-human, supernatural beings (though without any intention of sanctioning the story as historical fact). So simply demonstrating that some angels are human does not thereby demonstrate that all angels necessarily are (kinda like spiritual death vs. physical death 
). Anyway, carry on. 
I’ll try to have a response posted in response to your last post to me by tomorrow afternoon (though I’ll try to keep it short, as I can sense that our discussion is quickly deteriorating into dead-horse beating 
).
Aaron.
Its, OK, to refer to the " non- human, supernatural beings" in Jude and 2 Peter, as the “demonic spirits” they are. Lol.
Aaron,
Just because I see physical death as a ‘type’ of spiritual death doesn’t mean that physical death doesn’t exist, though you keep trying to accuse me of taking an either/or stand. I just happen to see physical death is relation to the death of the body (which profits nothing and returns to dust) and not the death of the person as a whole (body, soul and spirit).
Neither have I ever claimed that all references to “angels” are references to men. I simply said that not all of them are references to spiritual being who are non-human. And last I checked “not all” doesn’t mean “none”.
That being said, I do still believe that the angels “which kept not their first estate but left their own habitation” are the Jews. Even Rev 18 speaks of Babylon the great falling and “is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird”.
Christine.
I believe “Babylon the Great” in the book of Revelation represents the “World System”, not Israel.
There is no evidence of transformation of the original body, that is your assumption. There was a transformation, but of Jesus and not his body. He was raised in a spiritual body, not his dust body. If dust did not return to dust, then Jesus never died. Dust returned to dust where it came, Jesus rose up a spiritual body. His original body returned to dust, tell me when you look at a dirt floor of a cave, would you make note of it?
There was no clothing in the tomb for Jesus to dress in, in fact…
**John 20:7
**…as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.
Was Jesus running around naked? Someone was in the tomb and had cleaned it, even FOLDING the cloth and separating it from the linen.
Just because something is not mentioned outright, does not mean it was not there. Much of your understanding of the resurrection comes from assumption and guesses, so it has just as much clout as any other ‘theory’ including mine.
2 Corinthians 5:1
Now we know that if the earthly tent (body of flesh and blood) we live in is destroyed, we have a building (body of flesh and bone) from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.
Do you even believe that Jesus is alive and well and has been visiting people for a long time since, even to this day, allowing people to touch and see him in his spiritual body?
…edit: rephrased.
But Craig, what of the empty tomb? You didn’t address that.
Yes I did. Dust returned to dust, and the cloth was cleaned and folded. Jesus walked out of that Tomb, but not in a transformed body, but in a new body. Dust on a dirt floor would not be noticed. What was noticed was 1. 3 angles in the tomb. 2. Cloth and linens separated and folded.
Here’s my opinion, based on what I understand Scripture to teach. The Father, although in essence “spirit,” has for the sake of the finite beings he created localized himself to an actual, physical place called “heaven” (what Paul calls “the third heaven,” or “paradise”) and there he sits enthroned in “unapproachable light” and reigns over all he created. It is by means of his non-localized “spirit,” or operative presence, that he extends himself to all possible space and influences/interacts with the world. So Jesus (who I believe is necessarily embodied and localized, as are all humans and finite beings) is sitting enthroned next to the Father in his contingent, localized form. Not sure if that’s “spiritual” enough for you or not 
, but I’ve found this understanding intellectually satisfying, so I’ll likely continue to maintain it as my own personal opinion until I hear another view on the subject that I find to be more compelling.
I think your agnosticism in regards to human existence in “eternity” would be justifiable if Scripture were indeed completely silent about the kind of existence we will have after death. But since it’s evident that Christ arose in a physical, tangible body and is the firstfruits of the dead (as well as that we are to bear his image in the resurrection, in contrast to that of mortal Adam), then I do not think your agnosticism is all that justified. I don’t see your lack of knowledge as being due to a lack of revelation on the subject, but due to a theology that has, at its heart, a false dichotomy between the “physical” and the “spiritual” (or at least, between the physical and your own understanding of the “spiritual”).
I believe he has to retain a physical body for the same reason he had to be raised with a physical body: he couldn’t exist as a human person without one. I think man, by definition, is physical, finite and embodied (which necessitates that he be distinct from everything around him, with a localized “center of consciousness”). Moreover, a human person is not a human person without a human brain. There are some aspects of our nature that could be removed or altered and we still remain human persons; but a brain is not one of them. It is by means of a brain that we have the capacity for rational self-awareness, which makes us persons (and thus God’s image-bearers). So it seems that Christ, in order to remain a human person, requires some kind of physical body and brain. And if you say, “Well I believe he has a spiritual body,” I would agree and point out that “spiritual body” does not mean non-physical, intangible, ethereal body. Paul says the body that is sown is perishable, dishonourable, weak and “natural.” The body that is raised is imperishable, glorious, powerful and “spiritual.” I believe the body with which Christ was raised was not of the former category, but of the latter. Yet his resurrection body (at least initially, according to your view) was physical, with “flesh and bones” (although it evidently had capabilities that his “natural” body did not have - Luke 24:30-31; 36-43; John 20:19-20, 26).
You seem to think that that which is physical will one day be no more. If that’s your understanding of 2Cor 4:18, then I think you’ve misunderstood Paul’s words. That which is “seen” does not embrace all that is and ever will be physical and tangible, and that which is “unseen” does not embrace all that it and ever will be non-physical and intangible. That’s not the contrast Paul is making here. The contrast is between that which is present (and which pertains to a shorter measure of time, the passing of which is observable) and that which is future (and pertains to a longer measure of time, the passing of which is unobservable). When Paul speaks of that which is “unseen,” he’s not talking about God’s “invisible attributes” (Rom 1:20); and he’s certainly not talking about some immaterial, ethereal realm or dimension.
Where did you get the expression “the spiritual realm of God” from? Because I don’t find such an expression or concept in Scripture. I think you’ve simply assumed that heaven, the place where God and Jesus sit enthroned and where the angels dwell, is immaterial and ethereal, and without any kind of physicality to it. But I don’t see any reason for believing this. And when you say “the physical universe” you seem to suggest that anything beyond the universe (e.g., the “third heaven” of which Paul speaks) must necessarily lack any kind of physicality. So while I don’t think our universe is “eternal” (at least I don’t think it is in its present state) I also don’t think its passing away would be the end of all things physical (and no, I don’t think Jesus exists “somewhere” in the universe, because I don’t think heaven is “somewhere” in the universe; I see it as being beyond the universe).
As far as conceiving of a “very good (but different) reason” for Jesus being raised with a physical body, no, I’m afraid I can’t imagine a better reason than the continuation of his personal existence (which, again, I think necessitates that he have a physical body). And I certainly can’t see how the primary reason for which Christ was raised with a physical body was merely to provide us with an allegorical application or object lesson. If that were the case, I would expect it to be central to the gospel. But I don’t find that to be the case at all. The historical fact that Jesus was raised on the third day is to me the best news possible apart from any consideration of its possible allegorical implications and applications.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to make here. “Christ” is simply Jesus’ title. The “body (whether the word is understood in a literal or figurative sense) of Christ” is necessarily the “body of Jesus.”
But what do you think it means to “know/judge according to the flesh?” I know what I think it means, but I’m curious to know what you think it means.
Angelic beings are frequently referred to as “men” because they evidently have anthropomorphic characteristics and features. And according to the prophet Hosea, Jacob wrestled with an angel (Hos 12:4).
I think you’re using the word “appeared” in a different sense than I used it. But it’s my fault; I meant to write, “appeared to have,” not “appeared with.” By “appeared” I meant “seemed” (e.g., we might say, “the house appeared to be empty, though it wasn’t”), whereas the way I worded it made it sound like I meant “became visible.” My bad. 
Again, the way in which we are told angels interacted with human beings like they did (i.e., using physical contact, and even eating physical food - Gen 18:8) suggests to me that their bodies (though certainly not identical to our mortal bodies) are in some sense physical.
In your blog you stated that, “Not all go on unto perfection and pass from death unto life (attaining THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, through THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST).” This seemed to imply that not all are raised or will be raised. But perhaps you simply meant in this life.
It’s interesting that you reference Romans 14:9, because Paul seems to have physical life and death in view here. The “end” to which Christ died and lived again was to become Lord of both the dead and the living. The meaning of “the dead” seems to be the physically dead, since Paul connects Christ’s lordship over this group with his physical death.
and
Again, what reason do you have for believing that our being saved from spiritual death and given spiritual life has anything at all to do with whether or not we have a conscious existence after physical death? And where do you think it is FIRST revealed in Scripture that, all appearances notwithstanding, death does not actually end our conscious existence and put us in need of a physical resurrection? Don’t you think that would require a revelation for us to know such a thing? Since your understanding of the resurrection of the dead changed, you now think there are a few verses here and there in the NT that imply it, but I’d like to know when you think this was first revealed to us by God?
Well the author of Hebrews represents Christ as being in need of salvation from it (Heb 5:7), so I’m not sure why you deny it. And if Jesus didn’t need to be saved from physical death, why was he saved from it? Did God unnecessarily save his Son from physical death? Why is Christ’s salvation from physical death so absolutely central to the gospel if he didn’t need to be saved from physical death?
What evidence do you have that “physical death” is but a “shadow,” and that “spiritual death” is the “substance?” I seriously don’t think you have any evidence of this, Christine. And the only time we’re told that that the invisible is made known to us by the visible is when God’s “invisible attributes” are in view (Rom 1:20). Is Paul talking about anything more than God’s “invisible attributes” here, Christine? No. And is Paul talking about God’s invisible attributes in 2Cor 4:18? No. And while this verse seems to be a pretty important verse for you (as it appears to be pretty foundational to your method of interpretation), Paul is simply not contrasting “physical” with “non-physical” here. He’s contrasting the present, mortal body (and the hardships to which it is necessarily subjected) with the future, immortal body (with which we will be “clothed” when that which is mortal is “swallowed up by life”). Both the larger and immediate context indicates this. One of the themes of 2Cor is the physical hardships that Paul and the other apostles were having to endure for the sake of the gospel and for those to whom the gospel was being proclaimed (2Cor 1:3-7; 4:7-12, 17; 5:2-4; 6:4-10; 7:5-6; 11:23-27; 12:7-10). Paul says, “For we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead” (1:8-9). Paul’s hope in the resurrection of the dead was what enabled him to go through what he did (cf. 1Cor 15:30-32).
Now, in 2Cor 4:13 Paul writes, “Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, ‘I believed, and so I spoke,’ we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.” We know Paul is not talking about spiritual resurrection here, because he and his fellow believers had already been spiritually raised with Christ (Eph 2:4-6). Paul is talking about the literal, physical resurrection here - i.e., the same kind of resurrection that Jesus experienced on the third day. Paul then immediately goes on to speak more about this future hope. The “outer nature” which Paul said was “wasting away” (v. 16) is simply that aspect of ourselves which will not continue in the resurrection (i.e., our present mortal bodies). It is in this “outer nature” in which Paul was “groaning” and “burdened” (5:2-4). Our “inner nature” (which, for the believer, is being “renewed day by day”), on the other hand, denotes that aspect of ourselves that will continue when we are raised (i.e., our mind and personality). Paul is not talking about the spiritual body when he refers to our “inner nature” (for it is our mind, not our spiritual body, that is being “renewed day by day” - Rom 12:2). Our spiritual body (i.e., our “heavenly dwelling”) is something that we will “put on” at a future time, when the last trumpet sounds. So when Paul writes that “the things that are seen” are “transient” (proskairos, pertaining to a short measure of time, the passing of which is observable) while “the things that are unseen” (i.e., their future resurrection bodies) are “aionion” (i.e., they pertain to a longer measure of time, the passing of which is unobservable), he places our future resurrection bodies in the latter category of things, since, being imperishable, they are not the kind of things that pertain to a short, observable measure of time. They will outlast all that is “transient.” But again, this doesn’t in any way mean he’s talking about “physical” vs. “not physical” or “shadow” vs. “substance.”
You chide me for using the word “after,” as if you believe that Paul was already clothed with his “heavenly dwelling,” or that he expected to put it on before the destruction of his “earthly home.” So which is it, Christine? Do you think Paul expected to be clothed with his “house from heaven” BEFORE or AFTER the destruction of his “earthly home” (which represents the mortal body - 2Cor 5:6). If it’s not “AFTER” then it can only be “BEFORE.” What do you think? Paul says he and those to whom he wrote were “longing” to put on their heavenly dwelling so that they wouldn’t be “unclothed” - but this doesn’t mean they didn’t expect to be unclothed for some period of time. And we know that Paul wasn’t clothed with his “heavenly dwelling” at the time that he wrote; he had to have been looking to a future time. So again, did he expect to be clothed and to “put on” his “heavenly dwelling” BEFORE or AFTER his earthly home was “destroyed?”
I say he expected to be clothed with it sometime after his mortal body was destroyed. And if this were the only passage we had on which to base our understanding of the resurrection, then one might be excused for believing that Paul expected to be clothed with it immediately after this event. But this isn’t the only passage, and to believe that Paul expected to be clothed immediately after death would make him contradict what he’d said earlier to the Corinthians concerning when he expected mortality to be “swallowed up by life.” He expected this to take place at Christ’s return to raise the dead and transform the living (1Cor 15:22-23; 50-54; Phil 3:20-21; 1Thess 4:13-18). So why does he speak of presently “having” a “building from God” in heaven waiting for him? Again, Paul is speaking of our future resurrection bodies proleptically. He represents the resurrection body as being kept “in the heavens” not because it already existed, but because it is so certain that we are to be clothed with it at a future time. Those whose “earthly home” (mortal body) is “destroyed” will not have to remain “naked” (in the state of the dead) forever, because they will be “further clothed” (by their imperishable, resurrection body).
I think the same argument that you yourself used back when you believed in “soul-sleep” is still just as forceful now as it was then, Christine. Paul doesn’t say he expected to “be with the Lord” immediately after he “departed” from this world (though it would certainly seem that way from his perspective!); that has to be read into the text. And just as you likely objected to people reading into the text what isn’t actually there, I object to you doing it now. I realize you can’t help but understand it this way now; your understanding of the resurrection of the dead pretty much demands that you to do the very thing you objected that others did when they read this verse (and I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad thing; my understanding of death and the resurrection of the dead demands that I understand his words the way I do). But that doesn’t mean you’re correct now and were wrong then, for Paul elsewhere indicates that he didn’t expect himself or anyone else to “be with the Lord” after they died until after the Lord returned from heaven to raise the dead and transform the living (1Cor 15:22-23; 50-54; Phil 3:20-21; 1Thess 4:13-18).
Sorry, Craig, for I misunderstood you. I thought that you were implying that Jesus’ body turned to dust over a long period of time.
So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that God miraculously changed Jesus’ body into dust in less than three days?
I’m not sure how it follows that if Jesus’ original body didn’t return to dust, “then Jesus never died.” I do believe that a return to the dust naturally follows death (unless something prevents it), but you seem to be equating it with death itself. Is that correct or am I missing something?
Also, if Jesus’ natural body was not transformed into his spiritual body, and his natural body returned to dust, then I’m not sure how that would be consistent with what we read elsewhere. In Acts 2:31, the apostle Peter declared that David “foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.” Similarly, Paul exclaimed in Acts 13:36-37, “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption, but he whom God raised up did not see corruption.” These verses seem to indicate that Jesus’ natural body did not return to dust (as David’s did), but was transformed before this otherwise inevitable event took place.
Well I know he did during the 40 days he spent on earth prior to his ascension to heaven, but I have no reason to believe he has been “visiting people for a long time since, even to this day.”
Yep.
Craig, what exactly led you to the conclusion that Jesus’ original body turned to dust in three days?
Then I have no reason to believe he rose the way you claim.
Same reason you think his body ‘transformed’.
I’m not aware of any verse that states Christ would be anywhere after his ascension except in heaven prior to his return to raise the dead and subject all people to himself. What has led you to believe otherwise?
The exception makes the rule. Just as an angel from heaven appeared to Jesus and strengthened him (Luke 22:43), Jesus from heaven appears to many and has appeared to many. If you think Jesus was sitting in some portal, some dimension called ‘heaven’, that is just an assumption. Jesus also appears in a different forms (Mark 16:12) and his being is not limited to place and time. As I said before, those who see Jesus, see Him through apophenia because their dust eyes and dust mind cannot comprehend fully what they are seeing when they see Him and rely on pattern recognition to create an image or He forces this image upon your dust mind. Such is the Spiritual Body of the Resurrection. Jesus never went anywhere when they looked up at His ascention; He only appeared to them as if He had gone into the clouds; that is why the angels who appeared asked the disciples why they were looking up (Act 1:10-11), heaven is not up.
Seen Him twice, once at age 4 and a second time at age 18 at very specific and significant moments.
If heaven is not “up,” why do you think Jesus looked up most times he prayed to the Father (e.g., John 17:1)? And if Jesus didn’t actually go anywhere, why did the angels tell the disciples, “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven?”
How do you know that what you saw wasn’t a vision?
Whether or not someone looks up means nothing, it is apophenia. No, it wasn’t a “vision”. He made it very clear who He was and showed me his hands and let me touch them and He lifted me in his hands as well. But, see, this is not about me and my experience. It is about someone who lacks experience, who insists on what they know when they don’t really know much about it and then when confronted with those who have experienced differently, they try discredit them or doubt the experience.
Actually, I haven’t shared my beliefs concerning the resurrection of Christ here, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Craig, it wasn’t a hard question that I asked you. Can you answer it? I am genuinely interested in hearing you out on this.
It is easy, He is God manifest in the flesh; his old body returned to dust. What else do you want to know?