The Resurrection Body

[zweiteskommen]

Hello everyone,

A "newbie" at the site here... been browsing for a couple days. It's good to join in on the conversations. Let me begin by stating that my "end times" perspective is preteristic, but to what degree I remain undecided. I do have some questions that I'm interested in hearing opinions on. I'll keep them to distinct threads.

What do all of you understand the nature of the resurrection body to be? I'll not color your comments by offering my own. Thanks in advance for your replies.

In Christ's Love,

Greg

[Bill the Cat]

IMHO, it is a physical body that eats and has flesh and bone, but does not suffer the debilitating effects of sin (aging and dying)

[Justme]

Hi,

Does the bible ever say what it will look like?
1 John 3
2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Matthew 22:30

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Here are some traits of the resurrected body:

...imperishable

...glorious

....raised in power

....immortal

And again
49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

All you have to do is figure out what the man from Heaven looks like. The last time He came down to have a chat with Paul He looked like this:

3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
6"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

It appears that the man from Heaven is invisible to living mortal man.

2 Cor 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

The man from Heaven is eternal.

I realize that doesn't tell you what the resurrected body will look like, I think you just have to wait and see.

Justme

[John Reece]

Today @ 01:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152654#post152654)
Justme:

Hi,

Does the bible ever say what it will look like?
1 John 3
2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Matthew 22:30

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Here are some traits of the resurrected body:

...imperishable

...glorious

....raised in power

....immortal

And again
49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

All you have to do is figure out what the man from Heaven looks like. The last time He came down to have a chat with Paul He looked like this:

3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
6"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

It appears that the man from Heaven is invisible to living mortal man.

2 Cor 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

The man from Heaven is eternal.

I realize that doesn't tell you what the resurrected body will look like, I think you just have to wait and see.

Justme

Justme,

I much appreciate your interesting posts.

Blessings,

John

[Suede]

Greg,

That's a good question, and obviously one that is hotly debated. Most will say a "perfect" physical body is what the resurrection is implying. I'm less convinced though. Attached is a link to a study. Read over it and decide for yourself,

http://www.preteristarchive.com/GeneralStudies/gs_spiritual-res.html

Take care,

SUEDE

[Solly]

Egad, he posted a link to preterist archive. And I'm the moderator. And DD might see it.

What to do
What to do

I'll hide :shy:

[Suede]

Solly,

LOL. Actually www.preteristarchive has BOTH Partial and Full views, don't let the name alone scare you. It's perhaps the best website on preterism in general. I was just given Greg/Zweiteskommen the other view lest he be ignorant; which I know no one wants.

SUEDE

[Justme]

Hi,

Is it really 'most' of the christians that believe a perfect PHYSICAL body. I don't think so.

From recent stats I saw on a Canadian TV churchy channel I would have taken it to mean a minority believe that.
I also read an article written by a Muslim fella who had this to say about christians:

What about belief in the Last Day, do the Christians believe in the Last Day? No. Why don’t they believe in the Last Day? Because they believe the resurrection will be the resurrection only of the spirits. They don’t believe that this body, this flesh, these bones, and flesh, and blood, and so forth will actually be in Paradise. They think only your soul will be in Paradise. ......................

a bit from a paper by Ali Al-Timimi. I only know the name I can't give any other information than that.It is from an Islamic website.

So I don't think 'most' believe that at alll. I personally do not know anybody who doesn't feel it is a spiritual raising of the dead.

Justme

[zweiteskommen]

Thanks everyone for your posts and thank you Suede for posting that article link. My personal opinion is probably more along the lines of Justme's post. I believe Jesus' body retained certain physical characteristics to aid in proving him resurrected, but obviously there were some significant peculiarities to it... i.e., passing through solid objects, being unrecognizable to the 2 on the road to Emmaus and the disciples at Galilee.

Justme also made reference to 1 John 3:2, "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is." If we were going to be glorified with bodies akin to the body that Jesus appeared with (defined by many as physical), this statement by John is peculiar indeed. If the beloved disciple, to whom the resurrected Lord also appeared, did not know "what we will be", then we should probably be less than dogmatically certain about it ourselves.

A physical body similar to our present "earthly tent" seems dubious to me, but it seems equally clear that a spiritual body is more than just a Hollywood styled vapor. Justme said it well, "I think you just have to wait and see".

God bless you all,

Greg

[Suede]

Hi Justme,

I actually disagree and feel that most Christians DO in fact believe in a physical resurrection. I would never use a Muslim to expound on Christian doctrine. The reason the Muslim is saying that Christians don't believe in the Last Day is because the Koran says so. But, of course we know that isn't the case. It's just another Muslim not researching anything. Besides, Islam's paradise is very much a physical place of physical pleasure including sex with perpetual virgins and drunkeness. Hardly the paradise described by our Lord or the real prophets.

SUEDE

[Justme]

Hi Suede,

My point was only to illustrate how others have perceived the christian faith, such as this muslim.

I don't recall if I put this on this forum before or not, but I saw some stats presented on a Canadian church channel.

There it mentioned that the evangelical now has increased to 6% in Canada, which was the group this channel promoted. I assume they meant 6% of declared believers in a Canadian survey.

The protestant denomination I support is about twice that large and we do not consider a physical return of the resurrected of anyone to planet earth.(Generally speaking anyway)

We would consider ther afterlife to be a heavenly eternal spiritual life.

I don't know how important any of this is anyway because simple majorities would prove little in a religious question.

Justme

[Suede]

JustMe,

Very good, I know a lot of odd perceptions people have of Christians. I guess we all do. Take care,

ADD

[dizzle]

Yes I did see it, and the preterist archive is a foul pit of heresy. I recommend with every fibre of my being to run as far from it as possible, as hyperpreterism, like it's ancient forebear, is a faith-killing cancer.

In case I didn't say how I really feel, here is my article

www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

[zweiteskommen]

Sorry, Dee Dee, but I continue to find preterism anything but faith-killing. I respectfully disagree with your stance that this is damnable heresy. If salvation hinges on an "orthodox" understanding of the nature and timing of the resurrection, we are all in big trouble. I find preterism an intriguing and challenging perspective that deserves to be heard rather than silenced.

Respectfully,

Greg

[dizzle]

First of all, I am a preterist, and second of all I defended in my article why I made that statement and the Biblcial justification for it which is much more valuable than our opinons. Third, if this is now the subject, I will request this thread be moved to the section for unorthodox doctrines. As the co-owner of this site I would have been remiss if I didn't state that this is completely in denial of an essential of the historic Christian faith.

[Justme]

Hi Dee Dee,

You have other articles on the net somewhere don't you?

I am sure I have read others of yours that I thought were much better than this link you gave. If you read this linked article you basically argue that it is OKAY to call this Hymenaeanism??? Well, of course it's okay, you can call it whatever you want.

In this one I don't see any good arguments at all, but I have seen better ones from you in the past. I still disagree as you know, but that's justme.

Can you link other articles so we can crit-teek em?

Justme

[dizzle]

No that is the only article on the subject and it deals with how hyperpret should be viewed by the orhtodox. This is not an issue about which we can call secondary or something to agree to disagree.

As far as that article, I am sure others have written better (I know of one that is coming out) but I am proud of my argument there, have had persons knowledgeable in this field compliment my work on it, and stand by it as one of my better accomplishments.

[Justme]

Hi Dee Dee,

Okay, I guess it was just in one of your replies on a forum and not a regular article.

Actually my vote WOULD be to move this topic to another area as long as we also move the readers. It is difficult to state opionions clearly if there are restrictions to deal with.

Justme

[Lazy Agnostic]

07-18-2003 @ 12:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152175#post152175)
Bill the Cat:

IMHO, it is a physical body that eats and has flesh and bone, but does not suffer the debilitating effects of sin (aging and dying) Why would it need to eat?

[zweiteskommen]

Dee Dee Warren:

First of all, I am a preterist, and second of all I defended in my article why I made that statement and the Biblcial justification for it which is much more valuable than our opinons.

But, your interpretation of the truth here is an opinion. Now, I'm not saying that preterists are right and partial-preterists are wrong... I'm not even saying I'm a preterist. What I am saying is that this is not so clear as to be incontrovertible one way or the other. It certainly is not essential to salvation.

God bless,

Z

[Bill the Cat]

Today @ 01:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161157#post161157)
Lazy Agnostic:

Why would it need to eat?

Didn't say it needed to eat, just that it can eat.(Luke 24:43, Rev 2:7)

[Suede]

Just Me and Greg,

Just Me,

Thanks for the Heads Up on the post moving.

Greg,

Here, here. :cheers: I agree much with Full Preterism. I'm a Partial but the more and more I look into Full, the more I see myself there in a matter of short time.

Take care everyone,

SUEDE

[dizzle]

Today @ 02:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161188#post161188)
zweiteskommen:



But, your interpretation of the truth here is an opinion. Now, I'm not saying that preterists are right and partial-preterists are wrong... I'm not even saying I'm a preterist. What I am saying is that this is not so clear as to be incontrovertible one way or the other. It certainly is not essential to salvation.

God bless,

Z

And I proved otherwise in my article. You simply stating otherwise without interaction does nothing. I made an assertion, I backed it up.

The more I deal (and this is not directed specifically at you though the discerning reader will pick up on what I mean in your post) with the word games of NeoHymenaeans, the more my distaste for the cancer grows, if that is even remotely possible consider my current utter revulsion.

[zweiteskommen]

I read the "duck" article.

"If we orthodox Christians are correct about the nature of the resurrection, then a denial of that 'kind' of resurrection is in fact a denial of the doctrine of the resurrection despite the fact that similar terminology is used." - DDW emphasis mine

The text that I have highlighted is presumptive. While it may be proven from orthodox teaching and creedal witnesses, it cannot be conclusively proven from scripture. The following statement from the same article by Dee Dee confirms this...

"So we have the outright condemnation of an ancient heretic who certainly denied the proper timing of the resurrection and may have also denied the proper nature of the resurrection as well." - DDW emphasis mine

Therefore, this argument is based on an assumption as opposed to being proven from scripture. As such, I fail to see how the burden of proof has been met.

Z

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162045#post162045)
zweiteskommen:

I read the "duck" article.

"If we orthodox Christians are correct about the nature of the resurrection, then a denial of that 'kind' of resurrection is in fact a denial of the doctrine of the resurrection despite the fact that similar terminology is used." - DDW emphasis mine

The text that I have highlighted is presumptive. While it may be proven from orthodox teaching and creedal witnesses, it cannot be conclusively proven from scripture. The following statement from the same article by Dee Dee confirms this...

"So we have the outright condemnation of an ancient heretic who certainly denied the proper timing of the resurrection and may have also denied the proper nature of the resurrection as well." - DDW emphasis mine

Therefore, this argument is based on an assumption as opposed to being proven from scripture. As such, I fail to see how the burden of proof has been met.

Z

You need to reread the article for you have failed to note what was attempted to be proven in assessing the burden of proof. If you carefully read the addendum response to Preston I make it painfully clear. The goal was taking MY and OTHERS presuppositions/detereminations/ as true for the sake of argument, and if true, what should be our reaction to this heresy. That is all, and I proved it in spades. I also went on to prove the high likelihood of the denial of the nature of the resurrection, and the may you added only further condemns modern Hymeaneans in that Paul issued such a condemantion then on the basis of a timing issue alone, which does not help the case. I FURTHER went on to prove that 1 Cor (taking orthodox presuppositions as true for the sake of argument) issues the same condemnation on issues of nature. So your shifting goalposts for what was the point of the article are irrelevant, and the nature of the body has been ably proven from Scripture by many. It would be a careless God indeed who failed to adequately explain a doctrine which Paul held to be worhty of the utmost scrutiny and to be the cause of the issuance of anathemas.

The argument is not complex and is irrefutable. There is no place for any tolerance from the Orthodox for his heresy. Thos who embrace it have cut themselves off from the historic faith. They may feel they are right to do so, fine. But have the courage and guts of such a conviction, recognize the facts, and do not try to dress a wolf in sheep's clothing. I find these games no different than the current Mormon desire to be considered as simply a sect of Christianity. If I were a hyperpret, I would not play these games. I would accept the consequences, ramifications, of my belief and act accordingly.

[zweiteskommen]

I'm sorry Dee Dee, but you're damning folks based on assumptions and that is a slippery slope indeed.

Dee Dee Warren:

It would be a careless God indeed who failed to adequately explain a doctrine which Paul held to be worhty of the utmost scrutiny and to be the cause of the issuance of anathemas.



Again, not proven. Back to 1 John 3:2...

The Apostle John:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.



If this inspired apostle could make such a statement, having been witness to the resurrected Christ, then in your words we have a careless God. The dogma has no origination in John or Paul... only in the uninspired minds of men (and women).

Z

[Justme]

Hi Dee Dee,

I'll take just one sentence from your duck article:

This ancient heretic claimed that the resurrection was past; modern-day Hymenaeans say that the resurrection is past.
***************

You are right about the ancient pair of guys, they said that.

However, there can be no modern day Hymenaens(using your definition) if indeed the general resurrection talked about in Daniel 12 and Rev 20 is past. The name wouldn't fit. If it is past then the modern dayers are telling the truth unlike Hymenaean and Philetus.

However, if you believe differently and for whatever reason want to call me a hymenaean, help yourself, but I call you on proving it. Your article proves that if your assumption is correct ... on and on..However, If your assumption is incorrect that would be leaving your article with zero credibility. It is not zero by the way, there is some substance as well.

However, I will lay out some verses to prove that the general resurrection( that of the dead who sleep in the dust of Daniel 12) is past.

There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered.

That would be the time of the great tribulation that precedes the coming of the son of man.

Mark 13

19because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now--and never to be equaled again.

When did this time of distress or great tribulation happen?

Immediately before the light show that included the coming of the son of man...

When was that?
As a preterist you are aware of Mark 13:30

30I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Would you like to see the same thing from a different angle.

1 Thess 4;14,15

14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Pauls readers will not precede those who have fallen asleep. Some of Pauls readers would be alive at the coming.

The Greek word used for 'coming' there is parousia so little is left to the imagination of what Paul was talking about.

And of course, again the parousia is one of the 'things' that occur within the generation Mark 13:30.

Should we look at just one more?

1 Cor 15

Paul tells us evrybody dies.(physically)

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

When are we made 'alive'?

But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

The greek word for 'comes' here is once again..parousia.

And that is Mark 13:30.

The parousia is part of the light show that immediately follows the great tribulation which was in 70 AD. The destruction of Jerusalem.

All this would mean that it is perfectly okay for me to say that the resurrection of Daniel is past because it is. Unless anyone has seen Daniel walking around I think it is safe to say that the raising of Daniel is only in the spiritual realm. Spiritual/heavenly/invisible/eternal.

However, there are people who are raised after the coming on the clouds:

Rev 14

13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."

They are raised as well, as it says in 1 Cor 15, this for me is still future.

I'm not a Hymenaean, I don't know if I qualify as a covenantal preterist, but I do have some biblical verses there that look pretty much in favor of a spiritual raising of the dead..

Justme

[dizzle]

Today @ 05:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162190#post162190)
Justme:

Hi Dee Dee,

I'll take just one sentence from your duck article:

This ancient heretic claimed that the resurrection was past; modern-day Hymenaeans say that the resurrection is past.
***************

You are right about the ancient pair of guys, they said that.

However, there can be no modern day Hymenaens(using your definition) if indeed the general resurrection talked about in Daniel 12 and Rev 20 is past. The name wouldn't fit. If it is past then the modern dayers are telling the truth unlike Hymenaean and Philetus.

However, if you believe differently and for whatever reason want to call me a hymenaean, help yourself, but I call you on proving it. Your article proves that if your assumption is correct ... on and on..However, If your assumption is incorrect that would be leaving your article with zero credibility. It is not zero by the way, there is some substance as well.


Well at least you get the point of the article which was quite simple and addressed the bellowing by the NeoHymeaneans that they should be accepted by the orthodox as simply another viable eschatological view. That is nonsense. The orthodox have no other Biblical choice but to excise that cancer. That was my only goal. I am tired of the unBiblical bellyaching.

I do not have the time or inclination to beat my head against a wall with you on the exegetical issues. No personal disrespect but it is not my job to convince you but God's. Others here have attempted. Perhaps in the future, I will change my mind, but not now.

[dizzle]

Today @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=162073#post162073)
zweiteskommen:

I'm sorry Dee Dee, but you're damning folks based on assumptions and that is a slippery slope indeed.

No I am being consistent in my paradigm which was my only goal to prove. My mission is to alert the orthodox as to what their proper response should be to the manipulative bellyaching by NeoHymeaneans that they are simply another viable eschatological view.



Again, not proven. Back to 1 John 3:2...



If this inspired apostle could make such a statement, having been witness to the resurrected Christ, then in your words we have a careless God. The dogma has no origination in John or Paul... only in the uninspired minds of men (and women).

Z

You really didn't defeat my point, but burned a straw man. But I will simply restate my point. I run a very busy site. I do not have the debating time I would like, as such, I am happy simply by alerting the orthodox to thier proper response. Also (and I am not referring to you since I do not know you well enough to say this) in general, I have found NeoHymeneans to be some of the most obsessive characters you can find. However, having cultic and heretical ideas will do that to a person. I spend my spare time with the ones who show up on my email doorstop after being ravaged by this heresy.

[Justme]

Hi zweiteskommen:et al;

Why don't you all and I run thru some of this stuff? I listed a few biblical thoughts back there, let's start with them.

I have never got one of these partial futurists to deal with the biblical, all they do is figure out someway to leave the scene and boldly state that I am wrong in general terms and I should just dern well accept their opinion. I have yet to see valid biblical references.

There is one poster back on ESCHATOLOGY that seems to have his ducks all in a row and will possibly meet this thing head on, maybe we could invite him.

Should we give it a go? I'll go post to Harrell.

Justme

[zweiteskommen]

Justme,

I think it's an excellent idea. Timing issues aside, I have no problem accepting the idea that the resurrection body is something other than flesh and bone (that should be obvious). Frankly, it seems to be more biblically consistent. My whole point in these discussions can be summed up thusly: what does the bible say. Orthodox beliefs and creedal statements can inform and guide, but they are not the final arbiters of truth. That alone belongs to the Word.

Z

[Justme]

Hi Zwieteskommen,

You wrote:

Orthodox beliefs and creedal statements can inform and guide, but they are not the final arbiters of truth. That alone belongs to the Word.
*****************

I see orthodox as a cheap Webster dictionary does--holding accepted views or doctrine. Therefore what is orthodox to a Jehovah witness is not accepted doctrine to a Baptist. So when a website such as this says unorthodox beliefs are not tolerated, they are telling the truth.. it is not orthodox to them, but biblically it can be a equine of a totally varied pigmentation. In other words the word orthodox has became almost meaningless. That's harsh isn't it? BUT I think it, so I say it.

I totally agree with you about the scripture is the final word.

As I said in another post somewhere I don't think the bible pins down what the 'next' body looks like, but can we come close.

A thought...when we experience a dream, we see others, but never our own body. Can the spiritual existance be any extension of this? The only verse that hints of this that I can think of is Luke !7:21.

In other words, does the raised 'body' really look like anything?
Any comments?

Justme

[zweiteskommen]

Justme,

I feel certain that we will have an actual body. I don't see a strong, biblically based arguement for the physical-flesh-and-bone type that most argue for, but the bible seems clearly to teach our inheritance of a grand and wondrous spiritual body. However, in my opinion, what many of us have considered a "spirit body" has been influenced by Hollywood to a large extent... some sort of vapor-like existence. I'm convinced that it will be far more glorious than that, but I can only echo the words of John... "it does not yet appear what we will be".

Consider the witch of Endor who summoned Samuel from the dead. Samuel's existence here is different from his earthly one... he had already divested himself of the "earthly tent". However, he is also in a pre-resurrected state. He has not yet been clothed with the imperishable and immortal body that Paul speaks of. There must be something far greater to come for Samuel and the rest of us alike.

Like you, I wish I knew. Some seem to think they have it figured out to the point that they can label others as damned. As I have stated earlier, if the apostle John wasn't sure, how can we be?

Z

[Justme]

Hi,

In 1 Cor 15 there are a number of verses which discuss the natural and the spiritual body. Like you, I feel there is 'something' within the heavenly realm or how would an entity be aware it actually was an entity.... I wish I haddened started getting this deep..alll of a sudden I have more questions than guesses...

Other than the John letter, 1 Cor 15 and the like angels of heaven verse, what other verses can you think of that would help out here?

Justme

[Harrell]

Opens the door just a crack… peeks in around the corner to see if anyone’s paying attention… slips into a corner and sits down to watch and listen…

Don’t mind me. I got Justme’s invite to drop in for a visit, so I’ll just sit here for a bit with all these ducks he thinks I’ve got in a row. I should fit right in with these quacks.

[John Reece]

Today @ 09:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=163028#post163028)
Harrell:

Opens the door just a crack… peeks in around the corner to see if anyone’s paying attention… slips into a corner and sits down to watch and listen…

Don’t mind me. I got Justme’s invite to drop in for a visit, so I’ll just sit here for a bit with all these ducks he thinks I’ve got in a row. I should fit right in with these quacks.

:smile:

[zweiteskommen]

Justme,

I often consider two other passages in addition to those previously mentioned that I think are helpful. Philippians 3:20-21 says, "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself." Again, a future body is taught and when considered along with the other passages you have mentioned, conveys a transformation into different type of body than the present "humble" one.

I think Hebrews is instructive here as well. 10:1, 8:5 and even Col. 2:17 teach that the things of this world are only a shadow of the heavenly things; that would be this "earthly tent" as well. Anyone can take a verse here and there to prove what they want, but when considering the panoply of scripture I see a body very much unlike the physical one we presently have.

Let me add another thought. As the Creator, God is distinct from his creation... including time and space. That our resurrection body could come into the very presence of God AND be "physical" (having existence in both time and space) seems to me an illogical conclusion. We often consider heaven and hell in terms of location... heaven is "up above" and hell is "down there". I think this language is akin to the anthropomorphic language often used to describe God or relate to us things concerning Him. Heaven may better be understood in terms of a state or order of existence as opposed to some locus.

Z

[Justme]

Hi Zweiteskommen,

There we go. I don't know what you think of the New International Version, but it reads as follows:

21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

That leads us back to what does Jesus'glorious body look like and that has opposing hints.

Luke 24
Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

..the verses where Jesus appearred to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Any other verses come to mind on what Jesus looks like.

Justme

[Justme]

Hi,

In your posts from other places I understood that you consider the heavenly situation, but something more beyond that. Would you care to tell me about that?

Justme

[Harrell]

Justme,

Well, I’m not sure what you’re expecting from me, but I agree with most of what you and Greg have said. I’m not willing to say too much about what kind of body we’ll have in the resurrection, because frankly, the Bible doesn’t tell us too much. I am convinced that we will not be just spirits, but that we will have some kind of physicality (is that a word?). It will not be flesh and blood (1Cor. 15:50). We will not throw off our bodies altogether, but we will be “changed” (1Cor. 15:51). I find Paul’s illustration in 1Cor. 15:35-38 intriguing, if not completely satisfying in terms of answering all the questions I might have: 35) But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36) You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37) and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38) But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.

When I see a grain of corn, I know immediately what it is. If I plant that grain of corn, it “dies” and then comes to life (is “raised”) again as a stalk. The stalk is still corn, but it has “blossomed” into something much more and much greater than the single grain that was planted. If I understand Paul’s illustration, my earthly body is like that single grain of corn which, when it is “planted” (dies) will be made alive again in the resurrection. The stalk that is "raised" from that single grain of corn is like my resurrected body. The body that I have in the resurrection will be as different from my present body as the stalk is different from the grain. But just as you can recognize corn by seeing the stalk, in heaven we will be able to recognize one another in our resurrected, glorified bodies.

[zweiteskommen]

Enjoyed your post, Harrell. You said it well.

Greg