Hi Craig,
Thanks for the response.
You wrote:
I want to be sure as to what your meaning is here.
My uncle died 27 days ago. His body has not yet turned to dust. Do you mean to tell me that he is not really dead?
What the heck is wrong with dust? The resurrection body is a material, physical body. Which means it’s made from stuff - like dust or old bodies. Resurrected stuff - if Christ had meant something other than resurrection, he would have used another word to described it.
If there’s a hoax here, it’s a misuse of the word ‘resurrection.’
Sorry for your loss. Your uncle is dead, and his body is dust though being sustained by chemicals to have the appearance that it is not dead. Your uncle is not the body in the casket.
2 Corinthians 5:1
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
It is not the body is not what is raised, it is the dead who are raised. The Body is not a material, physical body, it is a spiritual body in which material physical universe can see and touch. It is NOT made from stuff like dust or old bodies. No where in Scripture will you find such a notion, except within Egyptian Religions.
1 Corinthians 15:40,44,47-49
There are also celestial [epouranios= origin from heaven] bodies and terrestrial [origin from dust] bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
[The Dead] are sown a natural [psychikos = breathing] body, [The Dead] are raised a spiritual [pneumatikos = being higher than man but inferior to God] body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
The first man is from the terrestial origin, earthy [choïkos = made of earth (dust)]; the second man is from celestial origin.
As is the earthy [choïkos=made of earth (dust)], so also are those who are earthy [choikos-made of earth (dust)]; and as is the heavenly [epouranios = origin of heaven] , so also are those who are heavenly [epouranios = origin of heaven].
Just as we have borne the image of the earthy (just as we have a body been made of dust), we will also bear the image of the heavenly (we will also have a body of heaven origin).
It is very obvious.
We have the EMPTY tomb. And we have Christ inviting Thomas to touch the nail holes and spear wound in His side. Christ’s body was resurrected - He wasn’t ‘wearing’ a replacement.
Fine. Then everything we see and touch is ‘spiritual’ - the resurrected body being an improvement but still resurrected - which is the orthodox view.
Actually we don’t. It was not empty, there were three angels in the tomb and folded clothing. Jesus also was not walking around naked.
As I said Jesus was not walking around naked when He met Mary, yet she did not recognize him. Also, I touched His nail holes in his hands when I saw Him, and I have no problem understanding it was apophenia. He was appearing to those who do not believe, in the way they will recognize them. He appeared to two other men in a different form, and appeared to Thomas in a different form. It is all apophenia.
John 20:14-16
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
Mark 16:12
When they heard that Jesus was alive and that Mary had seen him, they did not believe it. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.
A perpetual hell for unbelievers is also the orthodox view. ‘Orthodox View’ means nothing.
It is not the body that is resurrected, it is the dead who are resurrected in a new body.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your condolences. You wrote:
If that’s the case, then Jesus’ body could have turned to dust and then be resurrected, right? What am I missing here, Craig?
Thanks,
Gabe
You got me on the naked thing. I don’t doubt your experience. But my hope is continuity of life. Not so much MoreofMe but me nonetheless. Which means you might be wearing your hat! Talk about mysteries!
Lately, you’ve been so humorless and dry. I hope and pray that all is well with you, buddy.
Keep it on your resurrection todo list to join John, Aaron and I in ping pong. And, yes, we’ll all honor Jason’s 20 page invitation to a game of ‘smiting’ at his place. Ain’t continuity lovely?
Aaron,
You can accuse me of being prideful and of not answering your questions while you pride yourself on being so much more thorough and patient with me than you find me being with you, but I’m just not seeing it the same way to be honest with you. I’ve felt that most of your replies to me have been condescending, increasingly so as the conversations and differences have grown. And I told you that I can “reply in kind”, so I’m not sure why you are surprised to find a bit of sarcasm in my last post. I’m sorry you don’t appreciate it, but then I’m not particularly fond of the rolling eyes and the belittling attitude you’ve had in your posts to me - almost all along – despite the fact that I have spent a great deal of time trying to answering all of your posts, point by point, no matter how long they were, how much time it took – spending hours answering a single post on several occasions – or how condescending I thought some of your comments were. I thought perhaps you might finally “get the point” if I turned the tables a little bit, but I guess not.
I also don’t know why you think that I have not answered all of your questions, even though I do take the time to break down all of your posts and address each point/question individually. Maybe that means that I’m not understanding the questions or maybe it means that you are just overlooking or not understanding my answers but, either way, we are spending a whole lot of time to get absolutely nowhere. And I’m not willing to spend another 2, 3, 4 hours of my time (yes, it does take me that long, sometimes) to try and wade through and answer posts that are now up to 12 pages long when copy/pasted just to get more of the same. Maybe I will change my mind later, but right now I just don’t have the time or the inclination. Sorry.
His dust body does not need to be resurrected, for the man, Jesus, to be resurrected. It is not about the body, it is the person. A person is spirit and body, the first body was made of dust, the second body will (and is) made from Heaven. The Person of Jesus was raised in a Spiritual Body, which He has and recorded to show up in different forms (unrecognizable by Mary, and unrecognizable to two of the disciples, and walking through walls but able to eat and drink, and appearing to others as He was as He was crucified).
The belief that we need the ‘natural’ body to be the frame of the Spiritual Body, is an assumption (though a very documented and upheld theological belief) but not a fact. Scripture may have the appearance to be speaking of a natural body resurrection which has been supplemented by a spiritual augmentation; but on the other hand, it also has very strong evidence that the natural body is no longer our body and we are raised anew in a new body, not a changed body.
I am wearing a hat. 
Life does continue, but we are no longer limited to the physics of this physical universe to live in it.
Indeed you are observant. I have my up and down cycles, currently I am in a down cycle but progressing out of it.
I will be seeing you at Alpha Centari B.
Christine,
I’m really sorry for any condescending attitude that I have expressed in my responses to you; reading back over the thread, I agree that some of the things I’ve said can be taken that way. While it’s certainly no excuse, I think many of my less-than-gracious remarks have stemmed more from a general frustration of being confronted with a view with which I am not very familiar, and of not knowing exactly how to adequately “tackle” it. And anytime we discuss something that is very dear to our hearts (as the doctrine of the resurrection is to mine), I think things can get heated pretty fast. I should have asked way more questions and sought more mutual understanding instead of so quickly posting my knee-jerk reaction to the doctrine being espoused (or at least, my understanding of the doctrine!). My overall approach and tone has definitely proven to have been detrimental to the conversation. My goal was to address your position in a way that both critiques what I think is erroneous about it while also showing respect for the one who holds to it; unfortunately, it seems I got off track pretty fast. While I managed to do the former (though without necessarily proving your position wrong or mine right), judging from what you’ve said I’m pretty sure I failed at the latter. So I definitely understand your decision. And while I really do want to further discuss some of the topics that have come up that I don’t feel have been adequately addressed by either of us, I too was growing a bit weary from the increasingly lengthier amount of time this discussion was requiring. I actually just started a brand new career last week, so my life has gotten significantly busier and more hectic due to this transition. So I actually welcome a break from the discussion - and if you decide you’d rather not resume the conversation at a future time, I won’t look at your decision as being a “point” for me. I think we’ve both challenged each other’s positions pretty well (at least, I feel I’ve been challenged by your position, even though I still don’t fully understand some aspects of it), so if this particular discussion between us is not resumed in the future, I’ll simply see it as being because we have reached a stalemate. And if it is resumed, I’ll definitely try to change my approach and general tone (and I can assure you that the “rolling eyes” smiley won’t be making any further appearances in my responses to you! ).
There was fellow name E E Brooks who wrote interesting things some years ago for a short period of time. Then he just seemed to fall off the face of the earth never to be heard of again. I share a part of one of his messages I copied some years ago. Please note although I haven’t read all of the posts it seems I have missed seeing the shadow and type of resurrection i.e. the term metamorphosis. Metamorphosis I believe speaks of the worm turning butterfly in the natural realm. Are there hints in this natural transformation, or is the shadow too imperfect? Just a thought, before sharing Brooks’ message on “summorphos”.
Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our Body. (KJV)
Jesus is the firstborn among many. There will be those who fully mature and change into the same “form” that God has. They will be completely filled with the fullness of God. In the next verse the word “conformed” is the Greek word “summorphos” which is a total “morphosis” or a change of form. Those who are completely transformed will be Glorified exactly like Jesus.
Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed <4832> (summorphosed) to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also Glorified. (KJV)
Change Form
4832 summorphos {soom-mor-fos’} adj
AV - conformed to 1, fashioned like unto 1; 2
- having the Same Form as another, similar, conformed to
The Greek word “summorphose” appears only one other time in the New Testament and the subject of both verses is a glorified Body.
Philippians 3:21 Who shall Change our vile Body, that it may be fashioned like <4832> (summorphosed) unto his Glorious Body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (KJV)
Here is the same verse in the NIV:
Philippians 3:21 Who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will Transform our lowly Bodies so that they will be Like His Glorious Body. (NIV)
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, We Shall Be Like Him; for we shall see him as he is. (KJV) Brooks
*Blessings,
John*
Is the shadow too imperfect? Not at all!
1Cor 15
The human body, in its form, is example of splendor transforming into greater splendor via the resurrection. The splendor of the resurrected God/man Christ
Remember that there are people who have completely non-existent bodies, the chemical molecule chains have completely broken down and been absorbed into other matter and energy conversions. If, by any means, a body of dust is required for someone to be resurrected (remember they have no body to be transformed), then only some will be resurrected from the dead. Hence the absurd of anti-resurrection activists through the ages who protest cremation believing it is a protest against belief in the resurrection as God’s Word promises.
Do any of you believe that there is an existence that exists beyond the natural in the supernatural realm beyond what is ‘created’ in our physical universe?
As Paul says, If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15:19)
Cool! My family says they will only chip in for my cremation. They don’t want to go for the added expense of embalment, coffin and burial plot. Now, I can only hope Ran won’t mind playing ping pong against a crystal vase filled with dirt. 
All jokes aside, Craig. I didn’t understand this question and am interested in where you going with the thought. Hopefully you will restate it.
Thanks,
John
Craig,
I respect your thoughts on resurrection, and I think we agree on much more than we disagree.
I still don’t understand why you insist that Jesus’ body turned to dust, though.
I might be wrong, but 1 Corinthians 15 does not seem to speak of the new body as a completely different body than the old. Paul uses the analogy of a plant growing from a seed. There is a continuity there.
He’s asking what was made (created) in the world that exists in the supernatural. Christ! Body and all. “It is I, myself!” He’s stumbling on the ‘I’.
Why is resurrection so important? Why not replacement, which amounts to reincarnation to something new and different - a different life ‘form’? A cow? A bird? Some form of more splendor than man. Because, after Christ, none exists.
So where is the origin of such splendor? Adam! Which is to say, God and the image thereof. So let people here talk about ‘spiritual bodies’ while not seeing the image of God in their neighbor. The splendor of a human being!
Christ never demeaned the body but the person. ie, What springs from the heart. Plato and Paul had other ideas. I’m following the resurrected Christ on this one - who loved His body and life and gave up both to save us from death.
If He, the person, was not resurrected flesh and bone, your faith is not worth jack.
Indeed.
Paul used human arguments, analogies which could best explain spiritual understandings using earthly examples. The very fact he uses this seed analogy should tell us he knew that the old body remains in the ground; that is, something comes out of the body of seed, but the body of the seed remains in the ground, it is not changed, it is not made new, it turns to dust and remains dust but something new appears.
There is a reason. It is just not explained at this moment as it first needs to be established that we are not raised in the old body, or a changed old body. We are actually raised in a new body, a nature which has been growing within for along time and is clothed with a body from heaven.
2 Corinthians 4:16;5:1-3
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building 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.
Not at all RanRan, it is those who can only understand what is ‘seen’ who suffer from ‘I, myself!’. Your only logic of your resurrection of the dead, is that the dead are resurrected in the body they were buried in. That is the ‘seen’, the ‘temperal’ of which those who suffer from the 'I’s and 'myself’s cannot move their understanding. They can only believe what they perceive.
Again, this is a poor man’s cop-out. We are rational souls, where as cows, birds, etc. are not rational souls. There is no re-incarnation in the resurrection. The dead are raised, not their natural dust bodies. We don’t have zombies walking around, or Egyptian mummies coming back to life. My Savior is not Zombie or Egyptian god.
We are not coming back to this life which is governed by physical universe, as Paul stated: If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15:19)
Now you are not even listening to what Scripture says about this.
Once again, you are not reading the Scriptures only obeying what you were taught or regurgitating what you thought was taught by the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 15:50
I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Flesh and Bone is not Flesh and Blood. Do a study on the word bone in the Hebrew. 
God will be all in all.