Thanks, Mitchel…Thanks for your reference to the specific writing of Paul.
It can be easy to misunderstand what someone is saying in a post, I suppose. You made the comment earlier that Jesus’ body was “only physical in the sense of bodily and not in the sense of natural, but spernatural and spiritual.”
And then you draw some meaning from Thomas that seems to imply to you that something “physical in the sense of body” but not “physical in the sense of natural, otherwise why appear in the room without opening a door?”
I have read various other postings here…Enhanced DNA, etc…all of this is a bit like counting the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. Interesting, I suppose…
From what I have read, we make a distinction between “spiritual” and “physical” that was not part of the thinking of the ancient world…and this has been aggravated by some unfortunate word renderings. Thus, what you or others here are implying by some word choices are not well defined or may mean things not meant in the original texts, for all I know.
According to the writers and commentators I have consulted, the “resurrection body” or biblical references to it in places like First Corinthians applies only to “the people of the Messiah,” – that is, to followers of Jesus – and these new or resurrection bodies will complete the creation that was fouled in the initial rebellion. They will be Spirit-created – not spiritual in the sense of not bodily or not physical – and whether that means enhanced DNA, as one post-er here suggested, or some other thing — interesting speculation, but only time will tell…and again, this refers only to “the people of the Messiah.”
As for Jesus’ resurrected form…again, I may be misunderstanding your wording here. As one archaeologist (not sure his religious perspective) the many explanations for the “empty tomb” of Jesus are “all based on nonsense” and the only viable explanation for it “is theological, i.e., the resurrection.” Now, again, what you mean by “not that He was making an effort to demonstrate He was physical in the sense of natural, otherwise why appear in the room without opening a door?” —the possibility also exists that both things are true – a physical body (in the sense by which we mean it – that is, we can touch it) which, because it was Spirit-powered or Spirit-created, is able to do things that the old corruptible body could not…When Jesus appeared to His disciples and they took hold of His feet and worshipped Him, this was a physical being with physical feet whom they were touching; when (Matthew 28:6) …“Look at my hands and feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones…” (Luke 24:39)…“Do not hold onto me” (John 20:17 ) — statements which makes sense only if people actually WERE holding on to --touching – Him.
Beyond all that, I do not know what you are trying to say when you go on about ‘physical’ being ‘supernatural and spiritual’ and 'physical in the sense of body but not that He…was physical in the sense of natural…" This part sounds like making a distinction that may not have been at all in the mind or heart of the writers of the gospels or Corinthians.