Resurrection Body: A further Transformation for Us All?


(Edward Miller) #1

Luke 24:36-39

If we believe the Bible, we would have to accept this; however, how can we match this with 1 Corinthians
15: 35-58? Did Jesus go through a further transformation when he went to heaven from the earth? Or should we accept the Roman Catholic doctrine that Jesus’ resurrection body is still physical? Even though I am a Baptist, I accept the Roman Church concept.


(George Brooks) #2

B[quote=“Edward, post:1, topic:37833”]
If we believe the Bible, we would have to accept this; however, how can we match this with 1 Corinthians

15: 35-58? Did Jesus go through a further transformation when he went to heaven from the earth? Or should we accept the Roman Catholic doctrine that Jesus’ resurrection body is still physical? Even though I am a Baptist, I accept the Roman Church concept.
[/quote]

So… Jesus is permanently in a body of flesh? That sounds rather preposterous for a triune Godhead.


#3

Looking at the NT, I think we can see that the resurrection body of Jesus is both like his original body, and yet unlike it in some ways. But it is certainly physical.


(Edward Miller) #4

@beaglelady,

I agree with you 100% percent and must say that the Episcopal Church is still correct on the resurrection of the dead and the nature of the resurrection body.

May God bless your spirit and body:grinning:

Edward Miller


(Christy Hemphill) #5

Kind of what Paul implies. Incorruptible flesh, but embodied none the less.


(George Brooks) #6

I thought I had encountered the logical limit of extreme literal interpretation with the YEC insistence on a 6000 yeqr old Earth. But perhaps this is in a tie for the Top Two literal interpretations:

Take these two paragraphs for a sample of the logic:

"… this is also evident from the very meaning of the term “resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:13, etc.). The phrase means: that which is dead (namely, our body) is made alive. If the same body that died is not the body that was raised, Paul could not call it the “resurrection of the dead.” It would not be a resurrection at all.

Third, the phrase “the dead will be raised” (1 Cor. 15:52) also communicates this. John Piper comments on this verse that, “If God meant to start all over with no continuity between the body I have now and the one I will have, why would Paul say ‘the dead will be raised’? Why would he not say, ‘the dead will not be raised (since they are decomposed and their molecules are scattered into plants and animals for a thousand miles) and so God will start from scratch’? He did not say that, because it is not true” (Future Grace, 372)."

For example, the writer says verse 13 (among others) uses the term that means "the body made alive’. That is an incredible distortion!

The term used, Anastaasis, does not “mean” that. It is the Greek word for “rising” or “standing up” (as from sitting) - - which has been amplified religiously to mean additional things.

Verse 52 uses a different word: “Egeiro” (Strong’s Greek #1453) is similarly employed.

KJV Translation Count — Total: 141 times.
The KJV translates Strong’s G1453 in the following manner:

rise (36x),
raise (28x),
arise (27x),
raise up (23x),
rise up (8x),
rise again (5x),
raise again (4x),
miscellaneous (10x).

to arouse, cause to rise
to arouse from sleep, to awake
to arouse from the sleep of death, to recall the dead to life
to cause to rise from a seat or bed etc.
to raise up, produce, cause to appear
to cause to appear, bring before the public
to raise up, stir up, against one
to raise up i.e. cause to be born
of buildings, to raise up, construct, erect

So the word has an extreme range of meanings, from “erecting a building” (which I think makes for a good analogy), to “to cause to appear”, to “cause to be born”.

The writer is actually trying to make a biblical case that God would never think of rebuilding bodies!

“. . . why would Paul say ‘the dead will be raised’? Why would he not say, ‘the dead will not be raised (since they are decomposed and their molecules are scattered into plants and animals for a thousand miles) and so God will start from scratch’? He did not say that, because it is not true.”

The writer does not attempt to reconcile his interpretation with cases where there is literally no more body… either through cremation or just the process of decay that inevitably happens over the course of decades and centuries. If there is no more body, obviously God does have to “start from scratch”.

This is a good example of “concrete thinking” at its worst - - as in “a head made of concrete”.


(Phil) #7

So long as he has dust, should be no problem for God.:wink:

And if you add some Portland cement dust and aggregate, you can even have concrete, I’m thinking.

Sorry, Friday brings out the bad puns in me.


#8

The idea of the resurrection being physical is obvious fact. The problem is that a few scholars have lost their minds in the last few decades trying “to pull a fast one” on Christian tradition by claiming the resurrection was spiritual all along in the earliest writers. This nonsense is finally declining in recent years.


(Edward Miller) #9

I believe that what you say is very wise.


(George Brooks) #10

@Korvexius

Why would resurrected humans have a less spiritual body than angels?

Are you one of those folks that think popular metaphysics of the ANE was “right on the money”?

Do you know how what the early writers said about where the Righteous Dead waited for the End of Days?


#11

I don’t think angels have “spiritual bodies”, whatever that means.


(Edward Miller) #12

Fellow Baptist,

Good answer!


(George Brooks) #13

Again with the non-answers, @Korvexius.

Okay … so the obvious question is - - how would you describe their bodily nature then?
Do you think they eat food? Do you think they are capable of bleeding?
Once we know what you think goes on with angels, maybe it will be possible to triangulate
what is credible for human bodies and what is not .


#14

They don’t need to eat and they don’t bleed since they aren’t mortal. Angels possess the bodies that we will possess once we’re raised from the dead in the final resurrection. They can pick things up if they wanted to, wear stuff, etc – physical bodies that aren’t immaterial. The only thing I’m proposing is that resurrection bodies aren’t immaterial in any sense.


(Christy Hemphill) #15

The angels that came to visit Abraham ate a meal with him. (The resurrected Jesus also ate food.) The angels that came to visit Lot were presumed to be sexual. Somebody heavenly had a wrestling match with Jacob. Why would resurrected humans have a less physical body than angels?


(George Brooks) #16

@Christy

Technically speaking, I would re-phrase my question to : Do angels need to eat?

I think it is obvious they can chew and swallow. But if you think angels are capable of operating on Earth invisibly, then it is not surprising if they also have the power to be visible in a recognizable human form.

Since we know so little about angels, but we know a tremendous amount about them compared to the nature of human existence in the afterlife, I would propose that our nature will be at least as “celestial” or “divine” in our Resurrected Lives as the angels are.


(Edward Miller) #17

@Christy,

No. But the Bible still says that angels can eat if they wish. They would not be very powerful if they couldn’t.
Read Genesis 18.


#18

The physical resurrection of Jesus is part of the Christian faith. After the resurrection, Jesus went to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that he had really risen bodily, that his body was not in the tomb, that his body bore scars from his torture, that he was not a ghost. His resurrection body had both continuity and discontinuity with his earthly body. Sometimes he was recognizable, sometimes not. One time he was recognized only when he had broken bread.


(George Brooks) #19

@beaglelady

All these references to Jesus in a physical body completely ignores the different circumstances that must inevitably exist after the End of Days (the moment time stops)…

millions of people were not just “standing up” …

… but they are “standing up” from out of the ground … out of the air … out of the oceans … from out of nowhere, because there were no bodies to animate.

And there apparently didn’t need to be the old bodies… because the new bodies … of whatever nature … were now supplied!

2Corinthians 5:8
"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

This is a real distinction from all this fleshy-body talk!


(Edward Miller) #20

Beaglelady is right.