Nope, that is not what I said.
Since you cannot understand that a Spiritual body is real flesh and bone, you are the one with the limitations in understanding what I said; otherwise you would not have made an issue of it. Read everything I say in context, not out of your own imagination. The Spiritual Body is not ethereal or intangible. His Body was flesh and bone, not flesh and blood. You do not know or understand the difference, you assume they are one and the same; but Jesus made it clear they were not the same otherwise he would have said so.
Jesus was and is resurrected from the dead, not his body.
Craig.
Your position contradicts Acts 13:34-37. Please provide the sriptural support Gabe has asked of you to support your position. Where in scripture does it support Jesus’ body turning to dust?
I didn’t say God was physical or visible, Christine. Talk about assumptions! 
“Localized” need not convey the idea of physicality or visibility. And no, I don’t consider Joseph Smith a prophet or the book of Mormon inspired - so yeah, I’m pretty sure I’m not a Mormon! At least, I’m no more a Mormon than you are (for they deny the doctrine of “soul sleep” just like you do). But of course, sharing similar beliefs with another religious system does not mean one accepts all or most of the beliefs of that religion.
Well if angels have bodies (which you don’t seem to deny), then I don’t see why their bodies can’t have some sort of organization that corresponds to the human brain, giving them the capacity for rational self-awareness. And no, I don’t think God has a brain, since God isn’t a finite, physical, embodied being. I don’t think God’s existence is characterized by some kind of material organization, unlike (I think) all created beings, whose surroundings are not extensions of themselves. But if you think you have reason to believe otherwise, then by all means do! 
Well seeing as you never really defined exactly what you meant by “spiritual” (even after I asked you to) you haven’t really allowed me to do much more than assume what you meant by the term, have you? But I’m glad you’ve affirmed that “spiritual” doesn’t mean intangible or ethereal, for I see these words as being antithetical to that which is physical. So it sounds like we’re more in agreement than we thought! But perhaps it would help if you defined what you mean by “physical?”
First, I don’t care much for the word “eternity” (which conveys the idea of a timeless, static realm without beginning or end) since I really don’t think it’s a biblical concept - at least, insofar as the existence of created, finite beings goes. But I’ll assume by “eternity” you simply mean our existence after death. In that case, I agree that we won’t exist in “eternity” the same way we exist now; we’ll be immortal. And where did I say that Rom. 1:20 is talking “only about God’s attributes?” I referred to that verse because the only “unseen” thing Paul is talking there is God’s invisible attributes, and nothing else.
“Wow!” Love the sarcasm. 
So are you claiming that heaven is not a physical realm simply because earth is a physical realm? Why can’t they both be physical realms? And are you claiming that that which the earthly temple was patterned after lacks physicality simply because it’s not earthly? Again, why can’t they both be physical? What reason do you have that earth is characterized by physicality and heaven is characterized by non-physicality? Do you think heaven and the structures present therein would in some way be inferior or less appealing if they were physical? If so, why? If not, then you shouldn’t sound so surprised that someone would believe something different than you, especially when your own understanding seems based on just as much assumption (if not more).
I must say, it’s so humbling to discuss theology with someone who is so objective and free from all assumption-making as yourself, Christine! 
Seriously though, I think I have made an effort to try to figure out what exactly you believe, and have asked you on several occasions to clarify what you believe to keep the misunderstandings and assumptions to a minimal, but you seem to assume pretty regularly that I should know exactly what you believe based on what you’ve already said. But why would I continue to ask you to clarify what you believe if what you’ve already said were crystal clear to me? If someone doesn’t understand my position on something, and they request clarification, I usually try to go out of my way to explain myself better; yet you seem nothing less than OFFENDED that I would ever ask you to do such a thing.
I’ve never said I believe God exists “physically.” You must have been assuming it. But I certainly believe that, insofar as he interacts with finite beings, he necessarily exists in the world in which he interacts with them. And since I don’t believe any being is an infinite, un-embodied spirit like God is, then I believe all other beings except God are necessarily physical and can only interact with God (and each other) in a physical realm that corresponds to their physical nature. So while I don’t believe God is limited to a physical realm, I believe all finite beings are; consequently, insofar as God remains permanently related to finite beings such as ourselves, he must in some sense permanently exist in a physical world (which I think both heaven and earth are). But of course, that doesn’t mean the totality of God’s being is confined to a physical realm.
If you don’t understand my position, just ask and I’ll try to explain myself differently. But to summarize, my understanding is that all finite beings are necessarily “physical” (for I believe that to be essentially “spirit” as God is, one would necessarily have to be an infinite being without limitations), and that in order to interact with God and with each other, we must exist in some kind of physical world that corresponds to our created nature.
Well what did Paul mean by “in the body” and “without the body?” By “in the body” he most certainly meant “bodily.” So right away this tells us that Paul believed the “third heaven” was an actual place that could be bodily visited (otherwise Paul wouldn’t have been unsure about his experience; he would have reasoned that he could have only travelled there “out of the body”). Consequently, the “third heaven” is a place that Paul believed people in physical bodies could, theoretically at least, be caught up to. And any place to which a physical being can go and experience (i.e., see and hear) is necessarily a physical place that corresponds to their physical nature. Which is what I believe.
But what did Paul mean by “without the body?” While some (and I’m not saying you do) understand this to mean that Paul was unsure of whether or not he left his physical body and went somewhere in a “disembodied” state (for lack of a better word), we find this same expression (“without the body”) used in 1Cor 6:18. There, it simply means, “in the mind” or “mentally.” So that which Paul was unsure of was whether or not his experience was objective or subjective - i.e., he was unsure of whether he actually physically travelled to paradise (i.e., miraculously transported there by God’s spirit just as Philip was miraculously transported to another location - Acts 8:39-40), or whether he simply “went there” in his mind. So in answer to your question, I don’t think anyone need leave this earth or their body to go to paradise when their going there is a subjective, mental experience. But to get there any other way (i.e., objectively) I believe one would have to leave this earth (and again, the fact that Paul was unsure of whether he was “in the body” or “without the body” presupposes that he believed he would have to have gone to the third heaven in his physical body IF his going there was not a mental experience).
First, the “kingdom of heaven” is not equivalent to heaven itself (which you seem to be assuming, though I could be mistaken). I believe there is good reason to understand “the kingdom of God/heaven” to simply be God’s reign in and among his New Covenant people, no matter where they are (whether on earth or in heaven). Second, John is speaking figuratively when he speaks of “paradise” and the “tree of life” in Revelation 2:7 (and elsewhere). But the fact that John can use “paradise” as a figure for some spiritual blessing that is enjoyed by believers in this life doesn’t mean it’s not also an actual place beyond this world that a person can physically go and experience. Again, I don’t see it as either/or, but both/and. The figurative meaning of “paradise” does not negate any literal meaning it might have (no more than the fact that John’s figurative use of the word “sea” in Rev 21:1 negates the idea that there is a literal, physical sea!).
When you talk about types/shadows revealing “spiritual truths,” you seem to be referring to Col 2:16-17, where Paul says, “These (i.e., the ceremonial observances under the Old Covenant) are a shadow of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ,” and to Hebrews 8:5, where we read, “They [the priests under the Old Covenant] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things…” Or did you have other verses in mind? Because neither of these verses say anything about Christ’s physical resurrection being a shadow of anything of substance that has come or is yet to come.
And all such language is figurative, not literal. I agree that believers are in the “promised land” and partaking of the “tree of life.” But all such language represents the spiritual blessing of having a transformed character and becoming more and more like Christ by one’s believing the gospel of his death and resurrection.
I’ve sorry if I’ve exasperated you. 
All I was pointing out was that that “Christ” is simply Jesus’ title, since you seemed to have been trying to make some kind of a distinction between “the body of Christ” and “the body of Jesus.” But I believe that, figuratively speaking, Christians are just as much members of the “body of Jesus” as they are “the body of Christ.” But our being members of Christ/Jesus’ body is figurative language, and not to be understood literally. Christ has a literal body, but we are not literally members of his literal body.
My understanding is similar to yours; I think Paul simply meant that we don’t judge people according to mere worldly standards and external relations (i.e., according to what a person looks like, or what race they are of, or their social status, etc.). But as you seem to agree, Paul’s words here have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus or anyone possesses, or will possess, a physical body after this life. It’s irrelevant insofar as that question goes.
I’m not sure why you think 2Cor 5:16 has anything to do with 1Tim 2:12. And while I have read your blog on this subject, I think Paul was indeed referring to the female sex in v. 12 just as he was referring to literal women in v. 9-10. But I see no reason to believe that Paul was here asserting a timeless principle that applies to all women everywhere; I think his words were relevant only to that particular culture and place (at that time, women of authority were associated with temple priestesses/prostitutes; also, many women at that time could not read or write, so their teaching would most likely not have been based on their study of the Bible, but on less reliable sources, such as dreams, etc.).
I was just pointing out that the being with whom Jacob physically wrestled was called an angel, since you originally said, “But even if he did, I’m not the one who said it was an angel, you did. The verse says it was a man. So was it a man or was it an angel?” The reason I don’t think he was a man in the sense of being a descendent of Adam is because he was clearly a supernatural being like other non-human angelic beings of which Scripture speaks.
I have no problem believing that “angels” occasionally refer to mortal descendents of Adam; I’ve never denied that, and have even noted it elsewhere on this forum. So yeah, I can prove that Christ was talking about mortal descendents of Adam in the verse to which you refer, and that the angel with whom Jacob physically wrestled (who, having anthropomorphic characteristics, was consequently referred to as a “man” in the narrative) was most likely not a descendent of Adam.
Are you saying Christ was or wasn’t physical when he appeared to his disciples? Which is it? It’s irrelevant to me how he did what he did, or what new capabilities his resurrection body had that allowed him to do what he did. All that matters to me is that he was just as physical a being after he was raised as he was before he was raised. Though his body was not the same, and he did not have the same limitations he did before, he was no less physical when he appeared to his disciples after his resurrection than he was before. You seem to have this erroneous idea that having physicality necessarily means one would possess the same limitations we do in our natural bodies. If you do, that’s an unwarranted assumption. If you don’t, then I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue, above. Evidently, Jesus’ having a flesh and bone body was no hindrance to his doing what he did, so the new capabilities he possessed with his resurrection body is no argument against his being a physical being. I never tried to argue that having a physical body would make it impossible to pass through walls, and if you think it would then perhaps your understanding of physicality is not quite robust enough.
I think so. Why don’t you start another thread on it, and I’ll give it a shot?
Actually, I don’t see “the dead” as referring “primarily to corpses,” because the corpses of most who have died throughout history have returned to dust. I see “the dead” as those who have died, irrespective of whether or not their former bodies still exist or have returned to dust. Jesus is their Lord because he is going to raise them from their state of literal death and restore them to a living, conscious existence. Unless this happens, I think the dead will remain dead, even if they were given spiritual life while they were still physically alive. Receiving spiritual life has absolutely nothing to do with the continuation of our conscious existence as persons; instead, it has to do with the character and mental disposition we have while we’re alive. Just as being spiritually dead in sin has absolutely nothing to do with our being mortal or our having a conscious existence now, so being spiritually alive has absolutely nothing to do with being immortal or our having a conscious existence after we die. Being spiritually dead or alive determines the quality of our conscious existence, but it doesn’t determine whether or not we have or will have a conscious existence here or hereafter.
What kind of resurrection was Christ talking about when he spoke these words, Christine? To answer this question, let’s ask: What kind of resurrection did the Sadducees deny? Well we know that whatever kind of resurrection the Sadducees denied was the kind that Christ affirmed. I think this point bears repeating and emphasizing: In Matt 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-40 (from which you quote above), the kind of resurrection that the Sadducees were denying is that which Christ was affirming. So were the Sadducees denying that people would be delivered from spiritual death and raised to spiritual life? Were they denying that Christ would be born in some or all people? No; the kind of resurrection of which they were in denial as a result of their being ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God was the kind of resurrection that Christ himself experienced; i.e., the resuming of one’s conscious, personal existence at a future time, after it had previously ended due to physical death. They were denying that anyone’s conscious, personal existence would be resumed at some future time after they died. But Christ rebukes them and refutes their error. But how? Answer: by applying reason to the words of God.
Because God identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and because God is not the God of the dead but of the living, then the unavoidable implication of Christ’s logic is that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will not remain dead for all time; even though they were dead and in the grave when God spoke those words to Moses, the fact that God still considered himself their God proves that these men will ultimately live again by being raised from the dead. Again, the kind of resurrection in view consists in the resuming of one’s conscious, personal existence at some future time, after it had previously ended. So Jesus is arguing that God would not have called himself their God if they were never going to be raised and thus live again (as the Sadducees erroneously believed). But since it is part of God’s purpose that they be raised, he can justifiably call himself their God, even though they were dead when the words were spoken.
That’s right - because all people belong to him, whether they be physically alive or physically dead. He is going to bestow a sinless immortality upon all, whether they be presently alive or presently dead.
Why do you think Paul was talking about people who are “dead in sin” here? As you know, I have no problem understanding him to be talking about spiritual death elsewhere, but I think the context must determine what kind of death is being considered. So what is it about Paul’s words here that leads you to believe he’s talking about people who are dead in sin, as opposed to those who are physically dead like Christ was physically dead prior to his physical resurrection?
“Because we have already been resurrected from the dead…” Sure, but in what sense have some people already been raised, Christine? Not in the sense that Christ was raised for sure - and not in the sense that Christ said the dead will be raised when he discussed the subject with the Sadducees. There is a figurative (spiritual) death, and there is a literal (physical) death. Neither is the “shadow” or “substance” of the other; they simply are what they are. In Eph 2, Paul talks about a past “resurrection” that he and his fellow-believers had already experienced, which is clearly a “spiritual” resurrection. But Paul talks elsewhere about a resurrection that he and others had not yet experienced, and would not experience until Christ returned from heaven and the last trumpet sounds. There’s no amount of spiritualization or allegorical spin you can put on Paul’s words to make that of which Paul spoke in 1Cor 15:50-54 and 1Thess 4:13-18 a past or presently ongoing event. In both passages Paul is talking about a single, one-time event that will take place at a single point in time, and which embraces all who have died and all who will still be alive when it happens.
So you think that what you currently believe about man’s post-mortem existence (i.e., that death does not end our conscious, personal existence) was progressively revealed to people just like the truth of universal salvation in Christ? If that’s the case, when do you think it began to be revealed to people? Because I can point to numerous prophetic passages in the OT where the truth of universal salvation in Christ was at least partially disclosed until the time came when the truth was fully made known to Jesus’ apostles after his death and resurrection (as can be most fully seen throughout Paul’s epistles). But are you suggesting that this is the case with the truth of what happens to people after death? Because I don’t see anything progressive about this; from the very beginning, all hope for any kind of post-mortem existence was in a resurrection from the dead. It was the pagans who believed that some conscious “part” of us survived the death of the body and went somewhere. The Hebrew people didn’t hold to any such nonsense; death was not viewed by them as an entrance into some different or higher form of life. They knew what any elementary school textbook will tell you - i.e., that death is the termination of life. So when did what you believe begin to be revealed to, and believed among, the Hebrew people? Are there examples in the OT of how the doctrine to which you hold was being progressively revealed? Or do you think this truth was first revealed to the apostles? What do you think?
Do you think “sleep” is used interchangeably for literal, physical death?
I’m unaware of a single verse that says some conscious part of Christ survived the death of his body. Perhaps you can show me why you believe this to be the case?
So when Christ spoke of spiritual death, you think he was implying that physical death was not something from which anyone needed salvation? Why do you think this?
I think if there was “plenty of evidence,” you would have provided it when I asked. So where is it? I seriously want to know why you think this is the case. Overwhelm me with the evidence.
In 2Cor 5 Paul was speaking as someone who was not yet dead, so it would have been inappropriate for him to have spoken of himself as something other than mortal. Do you disagree with this? And yeah, I fully agree that a person doesn’t have to be unclothed to be clothed upon, since the entire last generation of mortals on earth are going to be clothed with immortality without having to experience death. For everyone else, they will have been previously unclothed and in need of further clothing. But Paul speaks of both those who are mortal (among whom he counted himself) and those who had already died in 1Cor 15. So he covers both the living and the dead - the mortal and the perishable (both of which are in need of a “change” to render them able to enjoy the kingdom of God after Christ returns to subject all people to himself).
You’re talking about a completely different resurrection than that which Paul spoke in 1Cor 15. You pride yourself on your ability to “rightly divide the word of truth,” but it would seem that your knife becomes rather dull when it comes to what Paul has to say concerning the resurrection of the dead. The only person who has “attained” the resurrection of which Paul speaks in 1Cor 15 is Christ himself, who is the firstfruits of them who sleep. According to Paul, no one else will be raised from the death under consideration in this chapter until Christ’s coming at the end of his reign, when the “last trumpet” sounds.
and
When have I ever argued otherwise, Christine? When have I ever said that “our desire is to be unclothed,” or that “death is swallowed up in life by our being unclothed?” And when does Paul ever say he expected to be clothed upon before the destruction of his earthly home? He certainly didn’t think he had already been clothed upon at the time of his writing.
So you think being unclothed means to die physically? I mean that’s my understanding, but I just want to make sure that’s what you believe before I say anything else.
Nope, and I never said otherwise. So what death did Adam experience 930 years after he was created? And was the purpose of that death to teach him or us something about the spiritual death he died on the day he sinned?
I’m doing no such thing, Christine. I’ve told you that I see it as both/and not either/or. There’s spiritual death and there’s physical death. Each is important in its own right. Having spiritual life now won’t do us any good after we die since there is no indication in Scripture that any part of us consciously exists after death. And simply being raised from the dead in the sense that Christ was raised won’t be a blessing to us unless we are also saved from sin and spiritual death. But I believe in both, and see both as necessary blessings that all people will ultimately enjoy when Christ returns personally.
I believe exactly what Paul says: his desire was to depart (i.e., from this life) and to be with the Lord. He doesn’t say he expected to be with the Lord immediately after he departed, does he? He sure doesn’t say that in all the translations I’ve read. And if you say, “It’s implied!” I say, “Only if you read it into the text.” This verse is perfectly consistent with the idea that Paul understood death to be like a unconscious sleep during which he would be unaware of the passing of time, and that his next conscious moment would, in fact, be “with the Lord.” Paul doesn’t say he expected some conscious part of him to leave his physical body at death and go to where the Lord was, did he? Or do you have access to a different manuscript than every other translator I’ve ever read? No, Paul didn’t say this. But that’s what you believe, and that’s what you’re reading into the text. So my question is, why do you believe this, and why are you reading it into the text?
If you’re referring to John 5, I believe Christ’s words were completely fulfilled about 40 years from the time he spoke them. And I firmly believe that those who are spiritually dead are still being raised to spiritual life today when the hope of the gospel penetrates their heart. Again, I have no problem understanding spiritual death as something from which people need to be saved. It’s you who can’t accept that there is anything other than spiritual death from which mankind needs to be saved. But since Christ was aware of his need for salvation from physical death (Heb 5:7), I think it behooves us to reflect on why he considered it something worth being saved from.
Point to Aaron
I love these never ending debates on “resurrection.” By the life of me, I wonder if any might have an idea, what the Hebrew’s author was pointing to, when there never seems to be found, a consensus on the meaning of “the resurrection of the dead”?
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” Heb,6:1.2
John
I’m well aware of the fact that logical inconsistencies will inevitably find their way into my posts no matter how hard I try to keep them out (especially when it’s a subject I’m very passionate about, like the resurrection of Christ and those for whom he died), but I’m curious as to what exactly you had in mind when you wrote this. Anything in particular that stood out to you?
I seriously doubt Christine had this verse in mind when she said what you quote her as saying. For her, any kind of resurrection other than being raised from spiritual death to spiritual life (Eph 2:5-6) and reaching the zenith of Christian maturity that Paul refers to as “attaining unto the resurrection of the dead” (Phil 3:10-11) and Christ being “formed in [us]” (Gal 4:19) is like the weight of a feather in comparison. What’s really important to her is the allegorical application that can be derived from it. For her, it’s “carnal” to dwell on any kind of literal resurrection (including Christ’s) if you draw no “spiritual application” from it; Christ’s resurrection is but the shadow; the “spiritual truth” that his resurrection was meant to convey to us is the substance… 
I’ve asked Craig three times now. I wonder what gives?
I do not see Aaron37’s posts, nor do I care what he says.
I answered your questions Gabe, whether you understand the answer at this time really doesn’t bother me.
The body of a person is not the person. My position does not contradict Acts 13:34-37, Jesus did not see decay. He was raised in a new body, the old body returned to the dust. His body returned to dust, but Jesus was not to be found, nor did He suffer decay. It is the person who is resurrected from the dead and is raised in a NEW body. Not the old body.
1 Corinthians 15:44
It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
The dead, the person, is sown in a natural body, and the dead, the person is raised a spiritual body. There are two bodies, complete and different bodies. The natural body and the spiritual body, one that passes away, and a new one we are clothed in.
I answered the questions, they do not fit some’s understanding of the resurrection and so they are expecting an answer that fits their own understanding the of the resurrection.
Craig.
No, Gabe just wants you to give scriptural support of Jesus’ body turning to dust which you have yet to do. How can your body turn into dust without decaying?
Maybe we could add another twist to this tireless discussion of our resurrection. Seems we are almost headed in this direction (below).
Is our resurrection as Jesus resurrection?
Jesus seems to not have come from the seed of a man. Some go as far as to say, Mary was but a surrogate. How does the conception of Jesus play into the equation, when we measure our resurrected body vs. His?
John
That is a good point, John, and why I couldn’t explain it earlier. If for any reason, there was a natural body that was raised spiritual (same body being spiritual and natura) it would only be Jesus who would have such a body. As it previously, Jesus being God (Trinitarian Doctrine) changes the resurrection understanding.
Craig.
You continue to add comments to your position without the scriptural support Gabe asked of you. Your theories are not worth 2 cents, unless you can show us from the word of God. Gabe has asked you to give scriptural support of Jesus’ body turning to dust. Also, how does your body turn into dust without decaying?
I am making an exception to Aaron37 since he is quoted by another in reference to a question.
Genesis 3:19 for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Job 34:15 all mankind would perish together and man would return to the dust.
Pslams 90:29 You [God] turn men back to dust, saying, “Return to dust, O sons of men.”
Psalm 104:29 When you [God] take away their [men] breath, they die and return to the dust.
Ecclesiastes 3:20 All [men] go to the same place; all [men] come from dust, and to dust all return.
Ecclesiastes 12:7 The dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Luke 24:44
He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
If the body of Jesus did not return to dust, then He never died and His Resurrection is a hoax.
Craig.
you said: If the body of Jesus did not return to dust, then He never died and His Resurrection is a hoax.
Aaron37: Jesus was the first man to die and be resurrected to new life and never die again… All the others before him died and their bodies turned to dust because they stayed there and decayed. Jesus’ body never decayed. Acts 13:34-37. Again, how does Jesus’ body turn to dust without it decaying?
Act 13:35 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words:" 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'So it is stated elsewhere: 'You will not let your Holy One see diaphthora"
diaphthora = corruption, destruction.
You assume it is talking about his body, but actually talking about Jesus. Jesus did not suffer corruption, neither was he destroyed. He was raised from the dead in a new body, one not of flesh and blood, but flesh and bone.
Because you continue to think (without any evidence but dogma) that we are raised in the ‘same’ body (which Scripture says differently), you continue to believe that this is what resurrection of the dead refers to (which it does not).
As I said earlier, I answered the questions, they do not fit someone’s understanding of the resurrection and so they are expecting an answer that fits their own understanding the of the resurrection. It won’t happen.
Jesus makes it very clear that the body is distinguished from the soul, many times, even if a soul requires a body.
Craig.
All we asked you to do was to show us scripture stating Jesus’ body turning to dust and you have failed to do so. All you have done is removed one foot from your mouth and inserted the other.
Btw, Craig, δια-φθορά (dia-phthora, 1312), -ᾶς, ἡ, (διαφθείρω), corruption, destruction; in the N. T. that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death.
Again, explain to me how Jesus’ body turned to dust without decaying?
Aaron37, you took your definition from a theological dictionary. Please use a real source for your Greek definitions. It has never referred to ‘body’, it has always referred to ‘corruption’.
Some theological dictionary and concordances say,
diaphthora
“in the NT that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death”
It is of dogmatic opinion, not fact, that the NT usage of the word was talking about corruption of the body after death. To preference it with, “In the NT…” demonstrates this fact.
diaphthora
- corruption, destruction
- in the NT that destruction which is effected by the decay of the body after death
Also, the etymological precedence says that the primary definition is corruption, destruction and that a secondary definition was added. As I said a blatant dogmatic opinion based on his theological preference, not fact of the word.
Responses like yours, is why I ignore you.
Craig.
I challenge you to ask Jason Pratt to confirm my Greek definition of diaphthora and how it is used in Acts 2:27 and Acts 13:34-37 to see who is correct.
I don’t care about what you believe, if you care enough to ask if Jason agrees with you, then go for it.
Craig,
Yet, you care enough to want us to believe Jesus’ body turns to dust without it decaying… with no scripture to support it.