Jesus and the Resurrection -- What will our bodies be like?

There is no backtracking involved here just reading what Paul wrote in 1 Cor 15! Some of us actually care what the Bible says.

1 Cor 15:35 But some one will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50 I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

But stupid me I bother try to understand YOUR problem with what Paul says and point out that the word “physical” has more than one definition. BUT obviously that doesn’t satisfy your utter determination to make this into a fight… as always!

I have read some more material posted here and I think another point should be made. The physical body of Christ in the tomb was resurrected, and there is no ambiguity on this point, and that body did not see (or experience) corruption. The physical body was transformed, and as it says in the bible, this is a mystery, in that the transformation for all of those saved in Christ provides a new body, a new person that is you and me, and us.

I cannot think of any other point of debate, but if you can we can discuss this further.


Paul makes the nature of the resurrected body crystal clear…
physical as in bodily? YES.
physical as in natural? NO.
physical as in perishable? NO.
physical as in made of the stuff of the earth? NO.
physical as in flesh and blood? NO.

But we can add from the encounters with Christ…
physical as in capable of being touched? YES.
physical as in capable of eating food? YES.
physical as in not a ghost? YES.
physical as in being flesh and bone? YES.
physical as in having a fixed appearance? NO.
physical as in unable to enter a room without opening a door? NO.
physical as in living the rest of your life on the earth like everyone else? NO.

How about physical as in capable of being crushed, burned, chopped into pieces, vaporized, infected, drowned, poisoned, smothered…?
I think not! Maybe beaglelady thinks otherwise. (shrug)
How about physical as in made of these things called atoms and molecules that operate according to rules of physics and chemistry?
I conclude from the previous conclusions that the answer must be no, since that is exactly where all these vulnerabilities come from. Maybe beaglelady thinks otherwise. But I could care less.
As a physicist that means the body of the resurrected Jesus is not physical. For Joe-blow for whom the word “physical” just means bodily and nothing else, I can well understand that this means the resurrected Jesus is physical. But clearly different meanings of the word “physical” are involved. Understanding and clarifying is NOT backtracking! And stubborn refusals to acknowledge distinctions is most certainly NOT understanding - let alone making a decent attempt at good communication.

The tomb was empty. But do we have any information about the process by which the body disappeared and by which the resurrected Jesus acquired the body with which he appeared to others? No we do not. Nada. Zip. Nothing! No information whatsoever.

I am struggling to find some point to debate :grinning:. A transformation is just that - so if we use the term ‘physical’ within this context, than it cannot be so - it is obviously ‘other-than’ what is was before the transformation. As a chemist, I cannot discuss the transformed body as a bunch of molecules since the physical composition has been transformed.

I had thought these matters were obvious, and the discussion centred on how a transformed body would function amongst us.

I agree that we cannot discuss how the body of Christ was resurrected, but we all affirm He was raised from the dead and His body was not in the tomb.

1 Like


beaglelady dragged you into this because she insisted that a physical resurrection to a physical body is the “orthodox” Christian belief and I responded with the position I got from EO websites since I consider the EO a better example of “orthodoxy” than Western Christianity. And I tend to agree with the EO on a number of theological issues even though I am an evangelical, since I read the Bible for myself and make up my own mind on these things rather than buying a package at the door. My position on this issue is simply to quote Paul 1 Cor 15 and it seems to me that most EO websites do the same. How can you get more orthodox than that?

Part of the problem seems to be that words mean different things particularly to different people, as does the word “physical” to a physicist like me. And that is why some flexibility with language is a good idea. But when people are taught religion in a very inflexible way then this can be difficult for them.

1 Like

If we skip over the clues known throughout the ANE, and go with our own desired opinions, does it make us dogmatic? Any being that takes on physical form in order to experience the physical universe is going to be physical. Many cultures and religions and naturalist for that matter do not see ghost as just an imagined form to make a literative point.

There is a spirit and ghost property in the physical. God forbids that we practice the act of calling forth those who are dead into the physical. God does not indicate the practice is just a figurative literative device. The reason there has been such a heated debate since Jesus actually rose from the dead, is that there are so many accepted views on the subject.

Why did Jesus point out he could not be touched? Was it because he was unclean? That does not make any sense. Was there a needed time, to rule out resuscitation allowed by the Jews. We do not know if Jesus’ body was brought back to life as soon as they rolled the stone and sealed the tomb. Caused quite a stir though that the body miraculously was gone even after Roman soldiers were gauranteed to prevent that. So Mary did not even recognize him, as her last memory was a dead body, severely beaten, and crucified on a cross.

It was the sound of his voice calling her name that allowed recognition, but he demanded not to be touched. There was no evidence in this form to show he had been crucified. A ghost in physical view was not a resurrected body. It was an intermediate state while still being dead. Jesus had yet to be raised from the dead in his restored completed spiritual body able to exist in the physical. He also appeared the same day to two witnesses that even talking to him did not jog their memory, it was not until he broke bread and gave it to them to eat, that they realized who he was. Then his body vanished from view. This is not a physical body, if it can not be recognized on sight. It was only days later that Jesus had a body that had the marks of the cross, and could be touched, and could intake food.

If none of the intermediate state was a literal event, it still should have indicated in a figurative way that proves Jesus was no longer dead. There is no ghosts state unless one is dead. Being in ghost form is not a resuscitated body. After Jesus returned from the presence of God, he did appear in a glorified and physical body that represented in a special way what marks humans gave to him, in carrying out in obedience the will of God. I also believe that Paul reasoned the new form that Jesus in the physical now appeared in was the restored form that Adam lost. Our current form is corrupted from the effect of sin and death. He likened the burial of Jesus in the tomb, as how all those in Christ would be placed into the ground, but would be raised at some point an incorruptible body without the effects of sin and death.

The part of us that is eternal and not physical (the ghost state?) Goes immediately to heaven, upon physical death. I think the physical bodily resurrection is the debatable issue. Is it an event yet to come or does it happen right away and the old “shell” if not lost to the physical via cremation or completely turned to any unrecognizable form, is of no importance at all like a seed is no longer important to the new plant?

We are to join God. If God is not Human how are we to join Him?

1 Like

Jesus went body and all up to Heaven didn’t he?

1 Like

That depends on where Paradise was. I do not use Paradise, even though Jesus promised one of the thieves they would meet, “that day” in Paradise. John Milton claimed that Paradise was lost when Adam was kicked out of the Garden of Eden. (I have not read Milton) I would assume it is the same as Abraham’s bosom. The place of purgatory or intermediate heaven, was not even “built”. At the time of the crucifixion and 3 day resurrection event; Jesus had not yet left earth to prepare it. Especially if doing so would take more than a few seconds, or 24 hour days.

I digress. My opinion was that (as a ghost) Jesus went to the place in hell where Abraham and all those who had faith in God were including the thief who had just died. If that is Paradise and the dead could see across a chasm to where those without faith were, then we are accepting a literal place. Otherwise, since Abel died, humans have been “stored” in a figurative holding place. Jesus entered the place of the dead, and brought back to a physical or spiritual state, depending on how one views a resurrection those in Abraham’s bosom. Where they went is not really stated. Either they were witnesses in Jerusalem and died again physically. Or they hung out until Jesus finished opening up a place in heaven for them to go.

Jesus told Mary on Sunday morning that he had not been to heaven yet. That is about all we have recorded.

I do not think any one can deny the point made in the Word. That the dead in the OT were treated different than the dead, after Jesus died and rose again. Abraham being the Father of the Hebrews was keeper of the dead. Are those dead with him only Hebrews? What about those before Abraham? What about converted Jews or Gentiles? After Christ, all who die in Christ will go to heaven, although there is debate on even that teaching of the church.

I do not think that Jesus immediately went to heaven when he died on the cross. Nor when his body vanished from human view. If you take the figurative action of the scapegoat in Jewish tradition he would have had to take the sin of all mankind someplace never to be found again by anyone. The God part left when He gave it up and died. Who Jesus is, the soul, had to take the sins to an unknown location. His body was placed in the tomb. If his flesh, the dead body turned into a transformed ghost does not make any sense. The body is just corrupted flesh. My take is after taking care of humanity’s sins, the old flesh disintegrated, and Jesus received a new ghost body, and then went to hell. Then talked to Mary and two other disciples and then went to God. Then prepared heaven. Then those just rescued from death did not have to die again, but rose into heaven like Jesus did the very last time he left the disciples.

Yes that is what I also believe. In fact I believe that was the point we changed from Simians into Homosapiens. Acquiring knowledge, changing us from hunter gatherers to farmers and herders. Changing the Garden of Eden into the Farm of Man.

How do you reconcile sin and death? Is there no such thing as sin? Would this not be Paradise gained? Or do simians still live in Paradise and this condition of homosapians is Paradise lost. Who lost what?

Yes the Simians still live in the Garden of Eden. Both physically and spiritually. Knowledge is the original Sin. We assume Godly powers for good and evil purposes.

It is self awareness ‘Self Consciousness’ that fears death and seeks eternal life. Simians lack this Knowledge.

No. The fear of death is a matter of instinct and all animals have this.

Well then, you know where to go to find happiness then. LOL

Life is a self-organizing process which grows and learns by the acquisition of knowledge. Sin is a collective name for self-destructive habits that work against life and learning.

All life seeks what knowledge and power they can to improve their conditions. Most learn to avoid what is counter-productive or their contribution is eventually weeded out of the gene pool.

With language we humans have a power for encoding information which surpasses that of DNA, and we pass on what we learn without the limitation of DNA to no inheritance of acquired characteristics. This allows for development on a vastly shorter timescale. But unfortunately the knowledge of what is good is very different from authority to dictate what is good. So when people play God they can do a lot of damage.

Animals fear predators not death.As with young children they have no concept of death.

Animals do not seek Knowledge. They may have Knowledge but not because they have sought it. Seeking requires ability to understand what one lacks.

Knowledge is the original Sin referred to in the Bible.

Look again. What you’re saying is plainly wrong.

No I read the Bible for myself. I have no interest whatsoever in the edited retelling by the Baptists.

1 Like

Since you didn’t read it in Greek, there’s little use in blocking out what the Greek scholarship says.