What do you mean by the “body of the seed”?
Craig said this: “Also, I touched His nail holes in his hands when I saw Him, and I have no problem understanding it was apophenia.”
What are claiming here, that you touched the resurrected Christ? When was this and what were the circumstances?
Yes. This is no boasting moment, I did not choose to do so, nor circumstances they were under. So not to distract from this discussion just go to my website:http://www.studentoftheword.com/About.html whether you believe it or not is not my concern.
The seed coat, also known as the seed body, is left behind when a seed becomes a plant. The body of the seed is not changed, nor is it used as the frame for the new plant, it is left behind.
**1 Corinthians 15:37-38 **When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.
This is stuff we learned in grade 3 when we grew bean plants in Styrofoam cups.
Our outer man dies and the inner man is raised. The dead are buried in natural body, and are raised in a supernatural body.
I spent six years studying the doctrine of ‘man’, looking at tripartite man, dual man, and singular man, soul, flesh, body, spirit, etc. Though I may today not be able to give the specifics of why I believe what I believe, I have come to the point where people can believe whatever they want, it is their responsibility to live out of the truth and study and show themselves approved workmen of the Word but for me I am confident in what I gathered is a greater hope than raising back to this life in an immortal body.
People die, not bodies. When a person is separated from their body, they are dead. The whole person is resurrected.
Exactly, so why is it so difficult for you to recognize this? It is the PERSON who dies, not the body; therefore it is the RESURRECTION of the DEAD, not the body. That is why they are given a new body, it isn’t that hard. Their physical mortal body is dead and dust, it isn’t coming back. And because it is the PERSON who dies, he must be RAISED in a NEW Body.
That is why Paul said, "Someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”…“When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be.”
I believe their witness - the tomb was empty. This esoteric stuff of Christ’s body turning to dust overnight is nonsense. Your witness is in conflict with theirs. You lose. You should repent of that.
Already explained this, the only reason you are aggrivated is because you don’t have a true answer to actually counter my BELIEF. The only one losing, is you with your temper, I have nothing to repent from.
- The Tomb was empty of the person Jesus.
- The tomb was not literally empty, as there were three angels inside the tomb and folded clothing.
- What is not mentioned does not mean it was not there;
a) Nobody makes notice of a dirt floor if there was ‘more’ dirt on the floor.
b)It is just as nonsense to say Jesus body transformed in the grave into a different body, as it is to say Jesus old body turned to dust and He was given a new body. - I actually belief something different concerning Jesus that did not and will not happen to the rest of humanity. He is God who took on the image of man, and we are men who will take on the image of God. So stopping the discussion is your loss, not mine.
Actually, Christ was made man, that is, born a man and remains a man. 100% man and 100% God in the SAME person. What you are arguing for now is the gnostic idea that Christ only appeared to be a man.
So our resurrection will be just like His - viz. a resurrection of the person - body and soul. Putting a soul into another body is reincarnation. You are confusing the two.
And really now! “His dust was on the floor of the tomb.” (which all the witnesses missed) to prove your theory - that’s asking too much. Maybe the angels were space people and vaporized His body with a ray gun. Real bodies don’t turn to dust overnight - apparently you don’t think He had a real body.
I don’t see anything superior to your gnostic stuff or Mormon stuff or Hindu stuff compared to the Christian witness of resurrection, which is the one I will continue to believe.
Hi Craig,
I’m curious as to what you think Paul meant when he said that “David…saw corruption” (Acts 13:36). If this doesn’t refer to his body, in what sense do you think David saw corruption while Christ did not see corruption? Also, what do you think Paul meant when he said that Christ “will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Phil 3:20)? This suggests to me that God can (and for some people, will) use the original matter that constituted our natural, mortal body to create our spiritual, immortal body. As you know from my introductory post on this thread, I do not believe the body that dies is the same body that is raised; however, I see nothing unscriptural about the idea that God can refashion/reorganize the matter from our original body to create our new body (which is what I think he did for Christ). What verses have led you to believe otherwise? The only passage I can think of that may possibly be construed to teach that our new bodies will be composed of non-earthly material is 1Cor 15:47-49.
Which is the meaning of ‘resurrection.’ The whole point of this is continuity of the human being. Reincarnation allows for invisible returns in different bodies and even forms (A man may return as a cow.) with prior lives forgotten. Christianity, on the other hand, allows for a single return from death of the same person - true continuity of body and soul. This why Paul talked about the ‘redemption of our bodies’ - redemption is all inclusive, again, body and soul - the TOTAL person is redeemed from death.
You don’t know what reincarnation is versus resurrection to even be talking about it.
Reincarnation is not coming back in a different body, it is coming back as a different person. In Reincarnation, you do not come back as RanRan, you come back as TinTin the dog, or MooMoo the cow, or MiMi the secretary from the Drew Carrey Show. In reincarnation you never return as the person RanRan, he was just one of the different personalities you developed in the course of you cycle through in a natural life.
Resurrection means the person has come back from the dead. In Resurrection, you come back as RanRan. Your memories and being does not come from your mortal body, it comes by the spirit (life) God breathed into you. When you die, your body returns to the dust and the spirit returns to God who gave it. In the resurrection, God returns your spirit into a body which He has predetermined you to have and you once again become a living soul. In the resurrection of the dead (not of the body else that is what it would be called), we are raised from the dead in a new immortal spiritual supernatural body.
As pointed out before, Scripture tells us completely (which you seem to still ignore) that in the resurrection of the dead, the body that is sown is NOT the body that is raised.
David saw moral corruption towards the end of his life. Like Moses, he never entered into the promise. If Moses, David, or any other person or prophet did not, nobody would consider them dead but alive. (Mark 12:27) But because he is dead, they continue to honour his grave. Hebrews 11:39 These (including David in verse 32) were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised.
There is no construing, I broke down everything Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Corinthians 4 and 5. Concerning the resurrection of the dead and the body that they will have, he said it is foolishness because the body is given by God, and then says plainly the body that is sown is not the body that is raised. He then says plainly there is two different bodies, a natural one and a supernatural one. There is no evidence that it is reconstituted physical body, but a new spiritual body. As specifically the words he used tell us that our new body does not come from earthly origin.
So like the others you have offended, Aaron, by your refusal to actually discuss what others believe and ignore their hours of writing to explain what they believe, continues to plague you. If you read anything I said, you will know why I believe what I do, because it has nothing to do with construing anything. Address the points already given to you, please disprove them. If you cannot, or unwilling, then you have no purpose in discussing the resurrection, you are just repeating your belief over and over hoping it will stick and that is just as offending to me as RanRan misusing the word “reincarnation” and saying I “lose” when I have not seen on stick of refute to the evidence I have supplied.
I think you’re mistaken that the “corruption” David saw has anything at all to do with “moral corruption towards the end of his life.” Paul’s talking about what happened to David “after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers” (v. 36). David’s moral character “towards the end of his life” is not even in view. Moreover, the corruption that David did see is contrasted with the corruption that Christ did not see: “…but he whom God raised up did not see corruption” (v. 37). And in vv. 34-35, Paul wrote, “And as for the fact that [God] raised [Jesus] from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’ Therefore, he says also in another psalm, ***‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.***’” Was Paul teaching that Christ did not see moral corruption towards the end of his life? I don’t think so. Christ’s immortal resurrection is in view, not his sinless character. David, in the Psalm from which Paul quotes (Psalm 16), is employing parallelism - a literary device that was common among the Hebrew people. Christ’s “soul” being “abandoned to Sheol/Hades” would be equivalent to his “seeing corruption.” To be abandoned to Sheol/Hades is to return to the dust - i.e., to “see corruption.”
Moreover, after having quoted the same Psalm, Peter (in Acts 2) goes on to explain the meaning for his audience so that there could be no mistaking what the Psalmist meant when he prophesied that the Messiah would not “see corruption” (Acts 2:29-31): "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendents on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades [the state of the dead], nor did his flesh see corruption" (cf. v. 26, where Peter quotes the Psalmist as saying, “My flesh also will dwell in hope”). Here we find that it was Christ’s flesh that did “not see corruption.” And why didn’t it? Because on the third day, Christ’s natural, perishable body was changed into his spiritual, imperishable body. Jesus’ flesh and blood body did not return to dust; it was instantaneously transformed into something new and different. It is for this reason that Christ’s body was not to be found. Your theory that it miraculously returned to dust is completely unsubstantiated, and is opposed to the clear teaching of the apostles.
On the contrary: If Christ was raised with a “new spiritual body” then it follows that the spiritual body is indeed a physical body. For Christ’s resurrection body is a flesh and bone body, and a flesh and bone body is a physical body. That the resurrected body is called “spiritual” in no way indicates that it lacks physicality. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Also, you’ve continually insisted that we do a word study on the Hebrew word for “bone” (etsem). Well I did - and guess what I found out? The word means “bone,” just like it does in the Greek (osteon ostoun) - i.e., a rigid physical organ that forms part of the endoskeleton of vertebrates. 
When Paul writes that “the first man was from the earth, a man of dust,” he’s simply emphasizing the fact that the created constitution of mortal man is such that, without miraculous intervention, he will inevitably return to where he is from (i.e., the earth) and thus be reduced to that from which he was created (dust). But the constitution of those who have been raised immortal is such that they will never return to the earth or be reduced to dust. Their permanent abode is to be in heaven.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here; what is it that you think “continues to plague” me? I offered a sincere apology to Christine. If there’s anyone else you think I have offended and need to apologize to, please let me know.
Craig,
But Paul’s analogy is that the seed itself is the old body and that the plant that grows from the seed is the resurrected body. Paul does not call the seed coat the old body.
Is that your way of belittling my education?
But the two bodies are related - physical stuff from physical stuff - otherwise, why use that image of a seed being planted?
Again, what you are talking about is replacement of bodies - not a resurrection of bodies. Body and soul are completely tied together - the redemption of the soul is the redemption of the body - if the two are not reunited, a person remains dead. Christians can say that there is not a part of man that has not been redeemed.
We have a single example of the nature of the resurrection: the new was resurrected from the old. (Or, better put, the old body was resurrected to new life.) The NT writers believed the same witness and founded their ideas about the nature of the resurrection on the same empty tomb - to say they were saying something different is to badly misread them and force people to doubt the witness. What have you gained in that?
Nope, but you can go on and think that if you wish but you only deceive yourself and make your own bitter roots.
You were the one who asked how seeds worked, and it is a fact that we were all taught this in elementary school.
The old body is not resurrected, no where in Scripture will you find such phrase or idea. It is all dogma and created theology to defend an idea which is has no Scripture to uphold it. Paul does call the seed the body, and a seed does not come out of the ground a seed. So, yes, Paul is calling the seed the old body and what raises is not a seed at all. Read all of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians it it’s full context. Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead, not of the body; that is why he said, “Concerning the resurrection of the dead, ‘what body is it raised’” because the body is not coming back, we (the dead) are sown perishable turns to dust, and we (the resurrected dead) will be raised imperishable and given a body that will not perish. The enter latter chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians is not talking about the resurrection of the body, it is talking about the resurrection of the dead and what kind of body it will be raised. There is a natural (dust) body, but there is also a spiritual (heavenly) body. We are not being raised back up as the seed which was planted, but in a new body which the Lord has destined us to have.
I do not believe in the resurrection of the body, I believe in the resurrection of the dead. You will not find 'the resurrection of the body" anywhere in Scripture, nor do you find the idea. Even Paul states, in the resurrection of the dead, WHAT BODY is THE DEAD RAISED? It is sown a perishable body and raised in an imperishable body. They are not, and never have been the same.
Those who are raised back in their original bodies, will die again; like Lazarus who was resurrected from the dead by Jesus in his same body. But there is a better resurrection, one that awaits those who have their bodies destroyed but have a home made in heaven.
The resurrection of Jesus is not, and will not be a pattern or likeness we shall follow. He is God who was manifest in the flesh, in the likeness of men. We are men who will be manifest in the spirit, in the likeness of God. Knowing this little tidbit (unless of course you do not believe in the Trinity) actually changes the whole paradigm of what happens in the resurrection of the dead.
Studentoftheword,
I have no intention on doing that.
No, I didn’t. I know how seeds work, Craig. I asked you what you meant by “seed body”, because I wanted to be sure I wasn’t misunderstanding you.
Sure, but why would you point that out to me if not to be condescending, as if I have a poor education?
Good, so you are retracting your previous claim that in Paul’s analogy the seed covering is the old body?
My point is this: Just as the seed transforms into the plant, so does the old body transform into the new body. Agan, there is a continuity here, and it is wrong to suggest that the old body does not become the new body.