The Resurrection Body

[atHisfeet]

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.

That would seem to support your inescapable grasp on all things “physical” quite well.

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”).

If there were no evidence to support the idea that Christ’s physical resurrection was meant to typify other things, then perhaps you might be right and one could say that it “proves only one thing”. But since I believe that Christ’s physical resurrection typifies our spiritual resurrection (eternal life) I don’t have to claim that is “proves” that Christ is still walking around in a physical body in another physical world somewhere, physically sitting on a physical throne next to a very physical Heavenly Father. (Sure you’re not Mormon? ) God IS SPIRIT! Christ is the image of the INVISIBLE GOD. How much clearer could it be?

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).

And yet angels are not human, don’t have human bodies (even if you think they do have some sort of ‘physical’ bodies), and yet they are rational beings. I guess they have physical “brains” too? And God, as well? God has a physical body and a brain like we do? And who said that will always be “human” as we understand “humans”? Besides, I never said that “spiritual” means intangible or ethereal. Was Christ intangible or ethereal after His resurrection? You read WAY MORE into what I write then what I actually say and then accuse me of “saying” it.

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.

Once again you completely ignore the fact that I have not denied any kind of physical existence in the future (or even now, for the matter). I simply said that I see no reason to just assume that we will (as a matter of “fact”) exist in eternity the same way we exist now. But I have not excluded the possibility, even if you want to keep harping on the fact that YOU THINK that I have. And no I don’t believe that Rom 1:20 is talking only about God’s “attributes”. It is BY HIS POWER AND DIVINITY that ALL THINGS that were MADE were MADE. Because ‘they’ exist (and are SEEN by us) we are “without excuse”).

Where did you get the expression “the spiritual realm of God” from? Because I don’t find such an expression or concept in Scripture.

Wow! Are you claiming that there is not a spiritual realm of existence, even as there is a physical realm of existence? Was not the earthly temple patterned after the heavenly?

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.

I think you’ve simply assumed too much about what it is you’ve assumed about me, but you still don’t have an actual grasp on what it is I believe or don’t believe because you continue to read your own assumptions into my answers to your questions, even after I’ve answered the same questions over and over again. Once again, I’ve never claimed that there is no future physical existence or that there is not other physical existence for us, even now, outside of this world. I’ve simply said that it is not a matter of “fact” and that neither does Christ’s physical resurrection “prove” it to be a “fact”. What I do see as “fact”, though, that that “physical” things only exist in “physical” worlds. Now can you prove that God (who the scriptures say IS SPIRIT and INVISIBLE and through whom all things that WERE MADE we MADE) exists “physically", in a “physical” world and that He didn’t just create a “physical” world for us (“humans”) to exist in, temporarily, for as long as we continue to exist “physically”? If you cannot “prove” that to be “fact” then don’t mock me for not jumping on you bandwagon while you continue to mock and belittle that which I call “spiritual” because it’s “too spiritual” for you.

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.

Paul couldn’t even tell you if being caught up to “the third heaven” was “in the body” or “out of the body”. Why? Did he, who was “caught up to the third heaven”, actually even leave this universe? Or even this earth? Or even his body, Aaron? What do you believe “the third heaven” is? And why would you even think that anyone needs to “go” anywhere (physically) to get there?

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).

And I see the kingdom of heaven as being “within” which is why it comes “not with observation”. And that which makes up “the heavens” are PEOPLE (the “angels” of the churches, which are the “stars” in His right hand, who are a great “cloud” of witnesses… ie “bodies celestial”), just as are “the earth” and “the sea” PEOPLE. Why is there “no more sea” when there is “a new heaven and a new earth” and why is there not even a mention of “the earth” when it comes to “the third heaven” (wherein we find The Tree of Life)?

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.

So you believe that rather than the physical being a type/shadow that reveals spiritual truths, it is the other way around? That the physical is actually the reality and the spiritual things to which they point are that which is, more or less, inconsequential?

Christ may have been raised on THE THIRD DAY, but it is TODAY when we hear his voice and harden not our hearts that we are allowed entrance into “paradise” and allowed to partake of the Tree of Life, Aaron. And while Christ was raised on the third day and said he will raise us up on the third day, we are revived AFTER TWO DAYS and I believe that even those who have been “revived” can “sleep” (no longer being “dead” though still be reckoned as such, according to a spiritual truth).

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.”

Good grief, Aaron. Do you not believe that we make up “the body of Christ”, a many-membered body, joined by one spirit, that is called by His name, but that is not (literally) “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.

It means what it says; not to judge things “according to the flesh” (by appearances, from a carnal/natural perspective). Like when Paul said “I suffer not A WOMAN to teach, nor usurp authority of THE MAN”. Do you believe that Paul was referring to women and men after the flesh?

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).

So what? How does that prove that this “angel” (messenger) was not “a man” Aaron? Christ said His reapers ARE THE ANGELS and He sent MEN (His disciples) TO REAP, to enter into ANOTHER MAN’S labor. So now prove to me that “angels are sometimes called men” rather than “men are sometimes called angels” is the case here. Can you do that?

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.

That doesn’t change the fact that Jesus, who had a physical though spiritual body, appeared in a lock room. How did He “physically” pass through the walls with His “physical” body of “flesh and bones”, Aaron? Can you explain how He did that while maintaining that He can’t be anything other than a “physical” being like we are? Can you pass through walls?

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.

Now prove that angels (non-human beings) always exist “physically” and live in some sort of a “physical” body in some sort of a “physical” world beyond this one and that they do not simply have the ability to exist physically in a physical world, such as ours, if/when a situation might warrant it? Or even that Gen 18:8 (and the man/angel that wrestled with Jacob) are actually not “men” sent by the Lord to other men. Can you?

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.

I’m not sure what context you took that from, though I hardly think that I was talking about a physical resurrection from dead since that is the very reason we are having this conversation, right? So do you think that Paul was telling corpses to “go onto perfection” and this they could only do “God willing”? I don’t; so I’d have assume, even without examining the context of the above quote, that I am talking about passing from death unto life “in this life”, yes.

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.

To you, because you see “the dead” primarily as “corpses”. I don’t. Why do corpses who are dead and not even conscious of anything need a Lord? God is the God of the living, not the dead… but Christ is Lord of both. We are talking living human beings here – some of whom KNOW GOD (and as such are “alive”) and some who do not (and as such are “dead” in sin) though ALL (both “the living” and “the dead”) have been reconciled to God through Christ.

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?

Because we have already been resurrected from the dead, which has nothing to do with the body of this death from which we have already been redeemed, that profits NOTHING.

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?

The “revelation” that you must still be waiting for, you mean?

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?

I’m not sure without going back and reading through the entire bible to try and pinpoint it. But maybe you can tell me how you pinpoint something that has always been there but that you just didn’t see, as to when it “first” appeared? When did God first reveal that Jesus Christ is “the Saviour of all men”? Can you pinpoint it? If so, tell me where that is and then explain to me why SO MANY cannot “see it” even though you can pinpoint it. Can you do that?

That being said, “death” and “sleep” are used interchangeably throughout the scriptures. While you want to focus on the physically dead and claim that God likens “physical death” to “sleep”, I see God using physical death as a figure of those who “sleep” - not in physical graves/tombs, as the physically dead do, but in “the body of this death” (formed out of the dust of the ground, earthy) that is “full of dead men’s bones” and whose THROAT is “an open sepulcher” and who TONGUE “is a world of iniquity… set of fire of hell/Gehenna” – who are “dead” IN SIN.

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?

I’m not sure why you can’t see that Christ’s physical death/resurrection does not “prove” that Christ was in a state of unconsciousness while His body was in that tomb. The only thing that is does prove is THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. Just because you see “the dead” after a carnal truth and believe that it is, therefore, the “physically” dead that need to be resurrected and redeemed from the power of the grave, doesn’t mean that that is “the truth”. Christ told us who “the dead” are; they are those who don’t partake of His flesh and His bones, those who do not come UNTO HIM that might HAVE LIFE. Just because they are “likened” to the physically dead doesn’t mean that it is physical death from which Christ came to redeem us.

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.

Well, I think there is plenty of evidence, apparently none of which you can see.

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.

That is not the only passage I have discuss, Aaron, and neither is Paul talking only about God’s attributes in that passage, anyway. So, IMO, you are wrong.

And is Paul talking about God’s invisible attributes in 2Cor 4:18? No.

And, since I never said he was, I have to wonder why you ask?

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”).

It is THIS MORTAL that must “put on” immortality, Aaron. And has been pointed out to you several times already, one need not be unclothed to be clothed upon. It’s not about taking something off it is about putting something on; something that THIS MORTAL must do. And corpses are not MORTAL, my friend, they are (even by your own admission) DEAD.

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).

AMEN, and Paul COUNTED NOT HIMSELF to have attained unto it. But He did count others, Aaron. He dimply did not bear witness of himself (and we are to walk by the same rule).

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.”

Our desire is not to be unclothed, but clothed upon. And it is THIS MORTAL that must “put on” immortality. Corpses are NOT “mortal”. Death is swallowed up of life by out being CLOTHED UPON, not by our being UNCLOTHED. It has nothing to do with dying physically (being unclothed). The flesh returns to dust, it profits nothing. Our “death” and “resurrection from the dead” has nothing to do with the condition of this “body”. It has to do with our relationship to God, from whom we are separated BY SIN. That separation does not exist beyond this life, a life in which we are subject to the things of this world and the lusts thereof.

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?”

We have already been clothed, Aaron. Paul was NOT waiting to be clothed and he wasn’t telling them to wait for it either. He said WE HAVE that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Just because some have not realized it yet and are still “longing” for it, as they wait for Christ to be formed IN THEM doesn’t mean that that LIGHT/LIFE is not ALREADY “in them”, as Christ is the light the lighteth every man that cometh into the world; but that LIFE is HID, until such time as HE (Who IS OUR LIFE) is made manifest. That comes by Christ being formed IN YOU, Aaron. That is the MYSTERY that was kept hid from the ages and generations… CHRIST IN YOU is the hope of glory. This is what Paul “waited” for (not for himself, Paul has already been “delivered of the child”) but he “trailed in birth AGAIN” WITH THEM as he waited for Christ to be formed IN THEM.

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).

Were Adam and Eve in a state of “physical” death when their eyes were opened to the “nakedness”, Aaron? Were they even physically dead when God provided a covering from them? You see the spiritual applications and yet you still want to look at everything through natural/physical eyes, as if it is the physical application that is the most important and where our focus needs to be - even though we are told to look upon those things that are not seen and to compare spiritual things with spiritual. You’re comparing natural with spiritual and giving more weight to the natural – almost to the exclusion of the spiritual, it seems. Why?

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.

It is “soul sleep” that has to be read into the text, Aaron. One has to completely twist Paul’s words and sentiment to get “soul sleep” out of the fact that Paul SO STRONGLY desired TO DEPART AND BE WITH THE LORD that he wasn’t even sure that he wanted to remain in the flesh (not even for their sakes) to believe that Paul did not expect to be with the Lord upon his departure but, instead, expected to sleep in his grave for a while first (something which you also claim he did not desire to do at all, according to you understanding of what meant by not desiring to be “unclothed”) UNTIL he was resurrected and could be with the Lord. You expect us to believe that Paul was “torn” between remaining in the flesh and sleeping in a grave (but have to add in a “third” scenario that Paul didn’t even have the option to choose) in order to support your belief in soul sleep and reconcile two passages of scripture, both written by Paul, that contradict each other if you don’t add to and read more into them than is there. It is not me who is doing that; it is you.

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).

As you said, it is your understanding of the dead and the resurrection of the dead that “demands” that you understand those passages the way that you do. But, as I said above, it is not me who is reading more into them and even adding additional scenarios to them that are not even present in the passage to maintain my current understanding. That is what you are doing and what I was doing when I would have agree with you, which is why I no longer agree; I finally realized that that was what I was doing and stopped doing it.

So you can continue to insist that all of those passages support your belief that Paul expected to sleep in a physical grave for while before being resurrected, even though His desire was to depart and be with the Lord in order to continue to believe what you do about “the dead” and “the resurrection of the dead” but I don’t. And your instance that those passage can only be understood the way that you understand them so demand a belief in soul sleep is proposterous. If that were the case we would all believe in souls sleep and there would be no question about it.

But I can not believe that Paul was torn between remaining in the flesh and dying if dying did not mean he would be with the Lord, even if it would be his next “conscious” experience. Paul suffered for the sake of the gospel and he was not looking for a way to escape it while he waited for Christ’s return (especially if, as you claim, he did NOT desire to die physically but wanted to be present in the flesh when that happened). You make Paul contradict himself and have to add to his words to justify it, but want to accuse me of reading more into the passage than is there?

Christ comes the second time unto them that look for Him, without sin unto salvation. Just because you see that as a physical manifestation that has not yet happened, though you claim some sort of “coming” in 70AD as well and I’m not sure how that factors into it, doesn’t mean that Christ is not “come” to awake those who sleep and redeem them from “the power of the grave”, saying “awake thou that sleepeth and arise from the dead and Christ shall give thee light”.

As I see it the graves have already been opened and the dead are already being called out.

[Aaron37]

Christine.

Do you believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh? Aaron doesn’t.

[AUniversalist]

Nice reply, atHisfeet, pointing out Aaron’s logical inconsistencies and his assumptions.

As I see it the graves have already been opened and the dead are already being called out

Matthew 27:52-53 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

[atHisfeet]

Christine.

Do you believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh?

Yes.

Aaron doesn’t.

Interesting!

[atHisfeet]

Nice reply, atHisfeet, pointing out Aaron’s logical inconsistencies and his assumptions.

Hello Craig! You actually read all that? Thanks!!! (just for that )

[AUniversalist]

Aaron doesn’t.

Interesting!

It changes people’s understanding of the resurrection when one does not believe Jesus is God in the flesh.

[atHisfeet]

It changes people’s understanding of the resurrection when one does not believe Jesus is God in the flesh.

Even when I believed in soul sleep I believed that Jesus was God in the flesh. So I was attributing Aaron’s belief in soul sleep primarily to his focus on the physical aspects of death and resurrection rather than to what (I believe) those things point to. I was not aware, at all, that he doesn’t believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh (if that is the case). How do you think that causes some people to look at death and the resurrection differently?

[AUniversalist]

It changes people’s understanding of the resurrection when one does not believe Jesus is God in the flesh.

Even when I believed in soul sleep I believed that Jesus was God in the flesh. So I was attributing Aaron’s belief in soul sleep primarily to his focus on the physical aspects of death and resurrection rather than to what (I believe) those things point to. I was not aware, at all, that he doesn’t believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh (if that is the case). How do you think that causes some people to look at death and the resurrection differently?

The difference between Jesus just being a man; and Jesus being a man, God in the likeness of man.

[atHisfeet]

I understand what the difference is, but what bearing do you think that has on how one sees the resurrection? I can see how it might be easier to believe that Jesus was dead and unconscious in the grave for three days if you don’t believe that Jesus is God; but I didn’t have a problem with believing that even though I also believed that Jesus was God, manifest in the flesh. I just don’t believe that Jesus is all there is to God or that God ceased to exist in all things just because he existed in the flesh, in the man Jesus Christ - which was why Jesus, as the son of God, was subject to and prayed to the Father and why the Father is greater. So I’m still not sure how seeing it one way or the other impacts one’s view of the resurrection?

[Aaron37]

Christine.

According to 1 John 4:1-4 anyone who does not believe Jesus is God in the flesh is not from God. They have the spirit of the antiChrist. I don’t know any genuine born again believers who deny Jesus being God in the flesh. If you have a wrong foundation of Jesus your doctrinal walls and roof will probably be wrong too.

[AUniversalist]

I just don’t believe that Jesus is all there is to God or that God ceased to exist in all things just because he existed in the flesh, in the man Jesus Christ

Nice list of objections I hear all the time concerning the Trinity.

It is difficult to explain why there is a different however, as it is actually very specific to Scripture says about Jesus and what He had to fulfill. His Resurrection from the dead, is not and will not be like our resurrection. Perhaps this is not a Trinity thing, but it is something that only God manifest in the flesh could accomplish but only a man could do (The complexity of the Trinity)

[atHisfeet]

Christine.

According to 1 John 4:1-4 anyone who does not believe Jesus is God in the flesh is not from God. They have the spirit of the antiChrist. I don’t know any genuine born again believers who deny Jesus being God in the flesh. If you have a wrong foundation of Jesus your doctrinal walls and roof will probably be wrong too.

That passage doesn’t say anything about denying that Jesus is God. It says that he who denies that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God. One can deny that Jesus is God and still not deny that Jesus came in the flesh. People do it all the time. That being said, though, I think there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh to dwell “among” men… just as the Holy Spirit is God sent to dwell “in” men. But maybe whether or not Jesus is God should be discussed on a separate thread? I think we are getting off topic here.

[Aaron37]

Christine.

Jesus coming in the flesh… in other words… Jesus being God incarnate.

[atHisfeet]

Christine.

Jesus coming in the flesh… in other words… Jesus being God incarnate.

You see it that way because, to you, Jesus is God. But the verse still does not say anything about denying that “God” is come in the flesh; it is talking about “Jesus” coming in the flesh. Can you not see that you can still BELIEVE that “Jesus is come in the flesh” and DENY that “Jesus is God”?

[Aaron37]

Christine.

you said: Can you not see that you can still BELIEVE that “Jesus is come in the flesh” and DENY that “Jesus is God”?

Aaron37: No, because believing Jesus has come in the flesh is acknowledging that He is God in the flesh. Christine, if you read 1John Chapter 4… it is teaching to be aware of false teachers who were denying Jesus has come in the flesh or being God in the flesh. These people are being led by the spirit of the antichrist.

[RanRan]

His Resurrection from the dead, is not and will not be like our resurrection.

How so?

The continuity in all this is that men (to be men) are from dust (the physical stuff of the universe). Christ’s body was resurrected. You seem to be saying that that is the only resurrection - the rest of us will get new replacement (not resurrected) bodies made from what? Some other stuff?

[atHisfeet]

Christine.

you said: Can you not see that you can still BELIEVE that “Jesus is come in the flesh” and DENY that “Jesus is God”?

Aaron37: No, because believing Jesus has come in the flesh is acknowledging that He is God in the flesh. Christine, if you read 1John Chapter 4… it is teaching to be aware of false teachers who were denying Jesus has come in the flesh or being God in the flesh. These people are being led by the spirit of the antichrist.

You can deny it all you want; people do it every day, which is proof enough that it can be done - whether you think that makes them antichrist or not (which wasn’t even my question, anyway).

[Gabe]

It is easy, He is God manifest in the flesh; his old body returned to dust. What else do you want to know?

Craig,

I asked you what Scriptural evidence led you to the conclusion that Jesus’ body turned to dust. You have not answered this question yet. I’m not sure how I can be more clear as to what I’m asking.

[RanRan]

It is easy, He is God manifest in the flesh; his old body returned to dust. What else do you want to know?

Craig,

I asked you what Scriptural evidence led you to the conclusion that Jesus’ body turned to dust. You have not answered this question yet. I’m not sure how I can be more clear as to what I’m asking.

Thomas wasn’t looking at dust when he was invited to put his hand into Christ’s side. Flesh and bone. A real resurrected body was before him…and if Craig were there? Would he agree that it was, indeed, Christ’s body?

How can people deny Christ’s resurrection and then say they believe it?

[Aaron37]

Gabe.

you said: I asked you what Scriptural evidence led you to the conclusion that Jesus’ body turned to dust. You have not answered this question yet. I’m not sure how I can be more clear as to what I’m asking.

Aaron37: Because there is no scriptural evidence that Jesus’ body turned to dust, but there is scriptural evidence that Jesus’ body was raised from the dead, no longer to return to decay in Acts 13:34-37… therefore, Jesus being raised in a physical, incorruptiple body. Craig’s position contradicts Acts 13:34-37.