That’s also the way I was taught. Them Bible Project also just recently begin to touch a bit back on this subject. But I was always raised that that soul is essentially life and a corpse is just flesh but a body with life is a soul and thst the spirit is just the mind. Consciousness and that a spiritual resurrection is just a continued consciousness.
For ancient believers the spirit is what communes with God.
I’ve always thought that Lazarus got a bum deal. XD
1 Like
This Christian believes that Jesus’s resurrection was literal and required as the validation of his divinity. Paul also explains Jesus’s literal resurrection as absolutely necessary to our salvation. The reality of miracles and their purpose is essential to orthodox Christianity.
Additionally, descriptions of human resurrection (both past and future) are treated as literal in the Bible. Although the prophecy if dry bones in Ezekiel is a vision, I think it’s a good picture of what is meant in the future resurrection at Christ’s return. Bodies that have rotted away will be supernaturally formed into living bodies of individual humans. From the Gospels we see that Jesus’s resurrected body in some ways seemed familiar and in some ways did not function as a normal mortal body. We have little information, except the recorded observations of a few disciples. I think it’s pointless to speculate very much past that. We don’t have enough information and often make stupid guesses.
One thing about the resurrection at the end of days that I do find fascinating is the matter of the Conservation of Matter! But even during our conscious lives right now, we are dealing with the same thing. Shakespeare pondered it in Hamelt, when discussing how a peasant can eat a king. Even during my life, I am using matter others have been using over and over and over. (Honestly, does evolution seem any more strange than THAT!?)
Again, I don’t speculate to far, but I do wonder what it all implies. Or if the matter God uses to achieve such a miracle is “different”. He knows. He doesn’t explain everything to us. I’m satisfied with that.
3 Likes
I don’t think the resurrection is about your original cells coming back together at the end of time. Otherwise, babies with microcephaly who died soon after birth would spend eternity small and deformed. Also, some of the matter that is you might very well have been part of someone else–e.g., an ancient battlefield where people died unburied might become agricultural land. And there is the case of transplants. If you get a heart transplant from a dead donor, how do you determine who gets the good heart?
I guess I still see that as the mind and brain.
That is sort of what I was saying. We are constantly shedding matter (not body parts, but molecules and atoms) and incorperating matter that has been a part of other biological processes already. The matter we have shedded doesn’t exist long as cells. It’s used in some other biological process (rot, compost, food, etc.)
I find the conservation of matter interesting to muse about, because at the final resurrection all people who have ever lived will be alive at the same time, thus needing some portion of matter that they are no longer sharing. Unless, of course, we will be resurrected with some other type of matter than we are familiar with in the universe now. And that is moving into speculation, which I don’t want to promote.
If people are resurrected on death their glorified bodies obviously don’t contain any of their previous matter. It’s still here. Neither do they contain copies of bad hearts, bad genes, psychopathic brains. There are less awkward questions if there’s a general resurrection after we’re extinct. Which could be within a year what with a hundred thousand Russian troops sitting on the Ukrainian border.
That’s what I’ve been saying
Thanks for putting that so clearly, Klax. Yes, I think you are right about glorified bodies (and whatever they will be comprised of).
Unfortunately, you may be on to something regarding Ukraine. It was so lovely for a little while to pretend the Cold War was over for good. Well, and those delusions are easier to maintain from this distance.
1 Like
That bit yes. But not the conclusion. Which opens the pit of credibility of the whole proposition of resurrection of course.
But I posted a theological lecture on that very topic. I’m not going to transcribe it.
I don’t do tl;dr links.
We need to discuss these issues openly, to chart the space here.
I don’t know what that is but I’m pretty sure I don’t do it either.
An acronym for “Too long; didn’t read”.
You didn’t read it because it’s a video lecture.
Same difference. I don’t need lecturing.
Tempted to consider the possibility that you just need a sound lecturing on your need for lecturing … but I’ll leave that to YouTube to provide. 
3 Likes
If God chooses to lecture me, that’s fine; I’d welcome it as I would any miracle, any proof of Him.
2 Likes
Better hold that order and make it a sound and the fury lecturing instead.