Resurrection of the Dead: How?

[Turgonian]

Just this afternoon, a pastor-in-training preached about the Resurrection of the Dead at our church, and although he said what I had always believed, he made me doubt it. :teeth: Things can be that weird.

How, he asked, could we be raised in the same bodies in which we died? How could people who lived 5000 years ago and whose ashes had been scattered everywhere by the wind? He affirmed God's omnipotence by quoting an example from Isaac Newton, who reportedly scattered iron filings on his garden path, covered them with a layer of sand, and then 'magically' got them all back using a magnet. So far, so good.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever affirming that God can summon ashes with a kind of divine magnetism and remake bodies out of them. But the situation is more complicated than with the iron filings, because of the cycle of nature: dead bodies, especially when buried, become the material from which other bodies are formed. Hypothetically, the body of a man who died millennia ago might be distributed over the bodies of a million men living today! :lol:
And besides that, our body cells are often replaced.

But assuming that God creates entirely new bodies (similar, or identical to the old bodies) and puts the same spirit in them clashes with a strong a priori assumption: namely, that God in re-creating changes, rather than obliterating the old and completely replacing it with a new version. In conversion, the 'new man' is not a different person from the 'old man', but some things are purged and some things are added. Other examples could be invented. Do you have any thoughts on this issue?

[Rayado]

That's funny--what you've said is exactly the same objection Gerd Ludemann gave against the Rez in a lecture I heard.

Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 15, by chance?

[mikewhitney]

In moving from the old body to a resurrected body, you may note that before the resurrection but after death there is yet an existence of that soul or spirit. This soul or spirit must likely exist to be resurrected. Hence, the definition of that man or woman is not based upon the physical matter but is based upon the identification that "I am me"

This self identity is a problem to atheist's viewpoint for people in their lifespan. The problem is that the body has replaced all its cells in 7 years( as I have heard). So from a materialist naturalist standpoint the "I" of 10 years ago no longer exists. Yet our self indentity and our connection with the past reasonably identify us as being the same beings as existed 10 years before.

[ChosenOne66]

Just this afternoon, a pastor-in-training preached about the Resurrection of the Dead at our church, and although he said what I had always believed, he made me doubt it. :teeth: Things can be that weird.

How, he asked, could we be raised in the same bodies in which we died? How could people who lived 5000 years ago and whose ashes had been scattered everywhere by the wind? He affirmed God's omnipotence by quoting an example from Isaac Newton, who reportedly scattered iron filings on his garden path, covered them with a layer of sand, and then 'magically' got them all back using a magnet. So far, so good.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever affirming that God can summon ashes with a kind of divine magnetism and remake bodies out of them. But the situation is more complicated than with the iron filings, because of the cycle of nature: dead bodies, especially when buried, become the material from which other bodies are formed. Hypothetically, the body of a man who died millennia ago might be distributed over the bodies of a million men living today! :lol:
And besides that, our body cells are often replaced.

But assuming that God creates entirely new bodies (similar, or identical to the old bodies) and puts the same spirit in them clashes with a strong a priori assumption: namely, that God in re-creating changes, rather than obliterating the old and completely replacing it with a new version. In conversion, the 'new man' is not a different person from the 'old man', but some things are purged and some things are added. Other examples could be invented. Do you have any thoughts on this issue?

These kinds of problems are raised all the time by hyper-preterists (those who deny a bodily resurrection). I would hasten to point out that we have absolutely no idea how God will do this (if we did, we would be God). What we do know (and believe in faith) is that God will do it. If we knew how God would accomplish this miracle, it would no longer be an article of faith, which is assurance of God's promises, even when they are unseen (2 Cor. 4:18). There are things which are simply beyond human comprehension (Isa. 55:9). Our job is to testify to the truth (1 John 4:14), not explain it so that we can completely understand it.

No matter how impossible or complicated things get, God is running the show, and He knows exactly what He is doing. "But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible,'" (Matt. 19:26). Though men can come up with interesting "problems" for the resurrection, we are to "let God be true though every one were a liar," (Rom. 3:4), even when answers to their objections seem far away. For we can very well agree with Christ: "But Jesus answered them, 'You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,'" (Matt. 22:29).

[Turgonian]

Rayado, probably I did, but I'll reread it.

mikewhitney, yes, man's spirit remains in existence, but I was wondering with what kind of bodies we would be raised -- completely new ones or (partially) old ones?

ChosenOne66, nothing was further from my mind than to deny the possibility (or even probability...nay, certainty) of the future bodily Resurrection, but thinking such matters through is not at all bad, and may lead to reasonable conclusions.

[Lost]

I have put in for a new nose, brown hair to replace my old grey hair and better eyesight.
I would like a small cabin near a river so I can fish and relax a bit after a very tiring life.
I have no doubt that the God who created the universe from nothing is capable of making a backup copy of my brain if its worth keeping which I doubt and He will give me whatever He would like me to have in order that I can satisfactorily praise and worship Him which is the reason for which I have been created.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I too have thought of this. Specifically what about a molocule that has been shared by dozens (if not thousands) of different people. This has always been a curiosity for me, but I never saw it as a problem. For one, Jesus resurrection body was described as having the ability to pass through walls. IMO I think it is reasonable to assume that our resurrection bodies will be similar to his. Therefore, whatever they are made of, they will not be bound by the laws of physics that govern this current earth (as opposed to the New Earth). Our res bodies won't die or corrupt.

IOW, there will be such a substantial change, that the material transformation of the "original" molocules, is low on the list of amazing things that will happen at that time.

[ChosenOne66]

ChosenOne66, nothing was further from my mind than to deny the possibility (or even probability...nay, certainty) of the future bodily Resurrection, but thinking such matters through is not at all bad, and may lead to reasonable conclusions.

I wasn't suggesting that you were denying the possibility or certainty of the resurrection (at least, I hope it didn't come across that way. if it did, I apologize). I was making the point that I don't think that we can ultimately offer a truly satisfactory answer to these protests beyond rough analogies. That's why I believe we are to simply testify to the resurrection, rather than trying to make it totally reasonable to unbelievers. There is a level of incomprehensibility in all this.

As to the resurrection body, I ran across this quote by Thomas Oden. He summarizes the ecumenical position (Protestant, Roman, Orthodox) of the univeral Church throughout history:

Does this imply that precisely the same cells and molecules that once constituted our body will be regathered and recomposed? No. For even in earthly existence, there is no such continuity. The body is constantly changing materially, and has been doing so since infancy. ... Yet its basic features have continuity, due to their genetic coding. The DNA molecules provide a unique, specified code for each individual that stamps each one as distinctive. There is no precise molecular identity between the grain of wheat buried in the ground and the harvest gathered the next summer, but there is clearly continuity of the organism. ... God will find fit means to guarantee the sameness of the body without constituting this as precisely the same cellular identity. The identity of the person will remain, as one person may survive several physical bodies metabolically during a given lifetime.

Thomas Oden, Life in the Spirit, pp. 402-403

This seems to be a much more reasonable position to take. I never thought of the DNA argument before.

[Turgonian]

:thumb:

Now that's an interesting thought. Thanks!

[ad101867]

You said it yourself: "our body cells are often replaced." Yet nowhere did you doubt, although your body's cells have been replaced (approximately every 7 years), that you are the same person regardless. What this means is that God can "replace" your current body with a new one, yet in some way it would be tied to your current identity (especially when you factor the soul into the equation).

I am also reminded of John the Baptist's words to the Jewish religious leaders: "God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham." (Matt. 3:9) That may not have any application to resurrection, but if it does apply, then it may apply like this: God is able, if He wished to do so, to take an inanimate object and change its structure so that it would be a genetic relative of Abraham's. Seems to me, then, that He could do the same with inanimate matter in terms of fashioning a new body that would be genetically "related to" one's current body.

Remember that, ultimately, our identities spring from the mind of God. I don't mean this in a pantheistic sense that we are "manifestations of God." I mean that before we existed, we were an idea in God's mind, and He turned that idea into a reality. And any meaning that our lives have, whether good or evil, is a meaning that derives from the Divine Mind; so also does the information stored in our DNA spring from the mind of God. That includes our personal identities. God can miraculously and sovereignly attach those identities to any object He wishes, and turn that object into a new version of *us*.

Even in science fiction such a concept is implicitly recognized -- in stories where matter, including humans, is replicated such that the replicant is literally indistinguishable from the original (the most recent example of this, that I'm aware of, is the movie THE PRESTIGE). I'm not suggesting scientists might actually be able to accomplish this in the future; I'm saying that the very fact such stories are written shows that at least some people, even nonChristians, recognize that there could be such a thing as a "replicant" that would possess the very same identity as the original.

Perhaps, then, our resurrected bodies will be replicants of our original bodies, bearing the same DNA except with changes to make us fit for the Age to Come.

In Jesus' name,
Andy

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here's what I think. The problem of identity through time is a notoriously difficult metaphysical problem. Consider the following two well-known examples:

(a) A wooden ship, we'll call her the Poseidon, is repaired plank by plank, by replacing each plank with a new one. This goes on until every single plank is replaced. The old planks are put in a pile in a garage. But then someone gets the old planks, puts them together again into a boat identical to the original. So there are now two boats, both the same except that one is looking a bit worse for wear than the other. Now which of the two is actually the Poseidon?

(b). Bill Gates buys the Parthenon from the Greeks in order to put in his garden, which helps solve the Greek budget deficit. As part of the deal, Gates has a marble replica of the Parthenon made and situated exactly as the original was. Then he reconstructs the Parthenon imported from Greece in his front yard. Which of these two is really the Parthenon?

Our intuitions go in opposite ways in these two examples; in the first case we are likely to say that the ship with the new boards replaced one by one is the "original", whereas in the second we are likely to say that the Parthenon in Bill Gate's yard is the "original". What is the logic behind this? Hard to say.

But returning to bodily resurrection - however God does it, I think our intuition, using ordinary language conventions, will be to say that the resurrected body is the same body that died. And that is good enough for me.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Here's what I think. The problem of identity through time is a notoriously difficult metaphysical problem. Consider the following two well-known examples:

(a) A wooden ship, we'll call her the Poseidon, is repaired plank by plank, by replacing each plank with a new one. This goes on until every single plank is replaced. The old planks are put in a pile in a garage. But then someone gets the old planks, puts them together again into a boat identical to the original. So there are now two boats, both the same except that one is looking a bit worse for wear than the other. Now which of the two is actually the Poseidon?

(b). Bill Gates buys the Parthenon from the Greeks in order to put in his garden, which helps solve the Greek budget deficit. As part of the deal, Gates has a marble replica of the Parthenon made and situated exactly as the original was. Then he reconstructs the Parthenon imported from Greece in his front yard. Which of these two is really the Parthenon?

Our intuitions go in opposite ways in these two examples; in the first case we are likely to say that the ship with the new boards replaced one by one is the "original", whereas in the second we are likely to say that the Parthenon in Bill Gate's yard is the "original". What is the logic behind this? Hard to say.

But returning to bodily resurrection - however God does it, I think our intuition, using ordinary language conventions, will be to say that the resurrected body is the same body that died. And that is good enough for me.
OK. I know this is off topic (sort of) but reminds me of a joke.

A man walks into an antique market and sees an item labled, "Axe of Abraham Lincoln" for $75.

He asked the clerk, "Did this axe really belong to Lincoln?".

"Yes", the clerk replied.

The was amazed that an item belonging to Lincoln was priced so low. So he took a look. The axe was worn, but not worn so much that it looked to be over 100 years old. And the handle had a staple in it that looked machined, and not of 19th century construction.

The man confronted the clerk. "Hey, I thought you said this belonged to Abraham Lincoln. But the axe does not look that old."

"Well," said the clerk it is Abe's axe. Of course the blade has been replaced three times and it has had 7 new handles."

[Lost]

As to identity and recognizing others who may look totally different, as in a new body, that is easy for God and has already been experienced by christians.
Our spirit, thru the Holy Spirit, receives things thru to our brains as we grow closer and closer to God.
I suppose you could call them words of knowledge or something but it is just something that you know for certain came from God, so recognizing people would be easy as pie done that way - we would just "know" that a particular person was a certain person.
The realm of the spirit is a big topic but almost all that really matters.
God is spirit and those that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.

[Shazard]

Technically today you have another body then one you had 10 years ago. I mean all the athoms are other.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I was watching (well scanning the chanels and stoped briefly at) the PBS documentary on Mormons. Apprently they believe in atom for atom restoration during the Rez. Problem for them IMO.

[con_sumatum]

Turgonian,
I read your post very carefully, and this is my reply to your question? My words come from a biblical perspective only. Do I know How God will accomplish the resurrection? No, but do I know what is written about it, yes!!!

The resurrection of the dead is like this--> God will return the spirit/soul back to earth and the dead in Christ Jesus will RE--again, Surrect--rise up, Bodily and then the resurrected physical body will be Transformed (glorified) into NON Physics---a glorified body fit and apt for existence in the realm of the NON physical (non Matter)

Immortal, not mortal, not physical, no longer to die, but this same glorified (spirit ONLY) body will be able to Manifest itself into the universe of matter just as Jesus did after His resurrection and glorification.
Remember, Jesus asked His Father to Glorify Him with what He was Before His incarnation. Since God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is HOLY SPIRIT and NOT physical, Jesus (the logos of GOD made flesh in John 1:14) asked His Father to glorify and return Him to His prior state and mode of existence in the spirit realm devoid of any matter and or physics.

We shall be as Jesus IS.....we shall be glorified and be spirit eternally so in GOD!!

Sincerely said,
Consumatum

[maudman]

Just this afternoon, a pastor-in-training preached about the Resurrection of the Dead at our church, and although he said what I had always believed, he made me doubt it. :teeth: Things can be that weird.

How, he asked, could we be raised in the same bodies in which we died? How could people who lived 5000 years ago and whose ashes had been scattered everywhere by the wind? He affirmed God's omnipotence by quoting an example from Isaac Newton, who reportedly scattered iron filings on his garden path, covered them with a layer of sand, and then 'magically' got them all back using a magnet. So far, so good.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever affirming that God can summon ashes with a kind of divine magnetism and remake bodies out of them. But the situation is more complicated than with the iron filings, because of the cycle of nature: dead bodies, especially when buried, become the material from which other bodies are formed. Hypothetically, the body of a man who died millennia ago might be distributed over the bodies of a million men living today! :lol:
And besides that, our body cells are often replaced.

But assuming that God creates entirely new bodies (similar, or identical to the old bodies) and puts the same spirit in them clashes with a strong a priori assumption: namely, that God in re-creating changes, rather than obliterating the old and completely replacing it with a new version. In conversion, the 'new man' is not a different person from the 'old man', but some things are purged and some things are added. Other examples could be invented. Do you have any thoughts on this issue?
Matter is elements on a periodic table and everything created that decays simple takes on that form the element. So the material we are made of temporally in this life is an arrangement of matter that stems from the periodic chart. If God wants to ressurrect anyone, he can do it at anytime any place in the form he chooses. Playing with dirt isn't a Problem with God. Its forms simply reflect Gods creative genius.

[ad101867]

Let's say you buy a car and you intend to keep it for a good long time because you're living on a budget. Of course, the car will need maintenance, and as it ages various things will go, needing replacement. As long as a person is willing to keep pouring money into a car for replacement parts, you can literally keep that car going until virtually every last part has been replaced from the original.

Is it, then, still the same car? We still tend to think of it that way, even with all the replacement parts. Why should we look at the resurrection of the body any differently? There is an identification that God makes between the new and the old; it doesn't need to physically be the same body in order to carry the same identity, because identity does not consist in a particular collection of cells -- but in a relationship between persons.

The collection of cells that is your current body is not the same collection of cells you had around 7 years ago -- but aren't you still the same person? Yes, because the new cells carry forward the same personal identity. There is no theological problem with God creating a new set of cells that would still carry forward your personal identity.

[SpartanWarrior]

Just some thoughts from a non-Christian:

If people like Frank Tipler can come up with a theory where all people who have ever lived will be resurrected as computer simulations in the far future by a super duper God-like computer, and if a band of transhumanists called the "Universal Immortalists", who are staunch materialists/atheists, can also believe that all who have lived will be resurrected by the hyper-advanced technology of the future, and if a pantheist like Eric Steinhart (at least, I think he is a pantheist) can also come up with a resurrection theory that (seems to me) is based on an infinite reality, then surely it should be easy for a Christian, who already has a personal faith in God, to have faith that any resurrection will be a simple thing for the Almighty.

[vette]

Here's what I think. The problem of identity through time is a notoriously difficult metaphysical problem. Consider the following two well-known examples:

(a) A wooden ship, we'll call her the Poseidon, is repaired plank by plank, by replacing each plank with a new one. This goes on until every single plank is replaced. The old planks are put in a pile in a garage. But then someone gets the old planks, puts them together again into a boat identical to the original. So there are now two boats, both the same except that one is looking a bit worse for wear than the other. Now which of the two is actually the Poseidon?

(b). Bill Gates buys the Parthenon from the Greeks in order to put in his garden, which helps solve the Greek budget deficit. As part of the deal, Gates has a marble replica of the Parthenon made and situated exactly as the original was. Then he reconstructs the Parthenon imported from Greece in his front yard. Which of these two is really the Parthenon?

Our intuitions go in opposite ways in these two examples; in the first case we are likely to say that the ship with the new boards replaced one by one is the "original", whereas in the second we are likely to say that the Parthenon in Bill Gate's yard is the "original". What is the logic behind this? Hard to say.

But returning to bodily resurrection - however God does it, I think our intuition, using ordinary language conventions, will be to say that the resurrected body is the same body that died. And that is good enough for me.

Aristotle solved this one for us, and it can be applied to bodily resurrection. According to Aristotle, there are four 'causes' that describe a something and these 'causes' can be analyzed to solve a paradox.

The 'material cause' is the matter that something is made up of.

The 'formal cause' is the design of something, So the ship here is the same ship, because the formal cause, or design, does not change, even though the matter used to construct it varies with time.

The 'final cause' is the intended purpose of something. So again, the ship here would be the same ship because its purpose would be the same even though its material cause would change with time.

The 'efficient cause' is how and by whom something is made. So again, it would be the same ship if the same guys using the same tools did all the work.

[N T Wrong]

I too have thought of this. Specifically what about a molocule that has been shared by dozens (if not thousands) of different people.

Shakespeare wondered about it as well:

KING CLAUDIUS: Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?

HAMLET: At supper.

KING CLAUDIUS: At supper! where?

HAMLET: Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end.

KING CLAUDIUS: Alas, alas!

HAMLET: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING CLAUDIUS: What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET: Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.

KING CLAUDIUS: Where is Polonius?

HAMLET: In heaven; send hither to see: if your messenger
find him not there, seek him i' the other place
yourself. But indeed, if you find him not within
this month, you shall nose him as you go up the
stairs into the lobby.

KING CLAUDIUS: Go seek him there.


N. T. Wrong :egad:

[Rupert Pupkin]

Aristotle solved this one for us, and it can be applied to bodily resurrection. According to Aristotle, there are four 'causes' that describe a something and these 'causes' can be analyzed to solve a paradox.

The 'material cause' is the matter that something is made up of.

The 'formal cause' is the design of something, So the ship here is the same ship, because the formal cause, or design, does not change, even though the matter used to construct it varies with time.

The 'final cause' is the intended purpose of something. So again, the ship here would be the same ship because its purpose would be the same even though its material cause would change with time.

The 'efficient cause' is how and by whom something is made. So again, it would be the same ship if the same guys using the same tools did all the work.

No, he didn't solve the problem at all. Carefully read the scenarios again. They are identical in every respect, but in one case our intuitions go one way and in the other they go the other way. Let's take each of your categories in turn:

Material cause: Case (a) and case (b) are identical with respect to material cause - in each case an object is replaced piece by piece until none of the original matter remains.

Formal cause: Case (a) and case (b) are identical with respect to formal cause. The design or formal cause of the Parthenon does not change if it is carefully replaced stone by stone, and neither does the design or formal cause of the ship.

Final cause: Case (a) and case (b) are identical again. The purpose of the repaired ship and the purpose of the refurbished Parthenon are the same as the originals.

Efficient cause: Case (a) and case (b) are once more identical. We can suppose that the same guys using the same tools did all the work in each case.

So Aristotle provides us with no grounds whatsoever to differentiate the two cases. Yet we are inclined to speak of the repaired ship as being the true ship, but no-one would say that the replacement Parthenon was "the Parthenon". In other words, despite the fact that the examples are identical in terms of your Aristotelian categories, in ordinary language we distinguish them sharply. So Aristotle has not solved the problem. He has not explained why in case (a) we go one way in ordinary language, and in case (b) we go the other way. You could claim that ordinary language is wrong, but that is implausible.

The problem of identity was not resolved by Aristotle.

[Teallaura]

Just this afternoon, a pastor-in-training preached about the Resurrection of the Dead at our church, and although he said what I had always believed, he made me doubt it. :teeth: Things can be that weird.

How, he asked, could we be raised in the same bodies in which we died? How could people who lived 5000 years ago and whose ashes had been scattered everywhere by the wind? He affirmed God's omnipotence by quoting an example from Isaac Newton, who reportedly scattered iron filings on his garden path, covered them with a layer of sand, and then 'magically' got them all back using a magnet. So far, so good.

Now, I have no problem whatsoever affirming that God can summon ashes with a kind of divine magnetism and remake bodies out of them. But the situation is more complicated than with the iron filings, because of the cycle of nature: dead bodies, especially when buried, become the material from which other bodies are formed. Hypothetically, the body of a man who died millennia ago might be distributed over the bodies of a million men living today! :lol:
And besides that, our body cells are often replaced.

But assuming that God creates entirely new bodies (similar, or identical to the old bodies) and puts the same spirit in them clashes with a strong a priori assumption: namely, that God in re-creating changes, rather than obliterating the old and completely replacing it with a new version. In conversion, the 'new man' is not a different person from the 'old man', but some things are purged and some things are added. Other examples could be invented. Do you have any thoughts on this issue?
The body is replaced over time, but more fundamentally, human funerary customs are very rarely conducive to human bodies ever re-entering the 'cycle of life' (i.e. ending up in the tomato garden as fertilizer). The few that will (via cremation or excarnation, presumably) won't remain in the human body for long. Cells are replaced, we poop what we don't need, etc.

The ion or two that actually remain lifelong in two different human bodies shouldn't be that big of a problem - they're probably not essential to either. Or God may simply never allow such lifelong sharing to occur - no human remains are used in the neural system (although there's some evidence that even this is replaced over time) and everything else is replaced over time.

In reality, by the end of a life, we won't have shared enough stuff long enough to be any issue at all.

:shrug: I don't see the problem here.

[Teallaura]

I too have thought of this. Specifically what about a molocule that has been shared by dozens (if not thousands) of different people.Um, what about the trillions of molecules we will have used up and discarded in even a single day? Do we get back every single molecule we ever used? We're gonna be kinda big, aren't we? :wink:

Dang, am I ever gonna regret using all those exfoliants...:uhoh:


This has always been a curiosity for me, but I never saw it as a problem. For one, Jesus resurrection body was described as having the ability to pass through walls. IMO I think it is reasonable to assume that our resurrection bodies will be similar to his. Therefore, whatever they are made of, they will not be bound by the laws of physics that govern this current earth (as opposed to the New Earth). Our res bodies won't die or corrupt.

IOW, there will be such a substantial change, that the material transformation of the "original" molocules, is low on the list of amazing things that will happen at that time.I have no problem with this line of reasoning - could well be.

[vette]

No, he didn't solve the problem at all. Carefully read the scenarios again. They are identical in every respect, but in one case our intuitions go one way and in the other they go the other way. Let's take each of your categories in turn:

Material cause: Case (a) and case (b) are identical with respect to material cause - in each case an object is replaced piece by piece until none of the original matter remains.

Formal cause: Case (a) and case (b) are identical with respect to formal cause. The design or formal cause of the Parthenon does not change if it is carefully replaced stone by stone, and neither does the design or formal cause of the ship.

Final cause: Case (a) and case (b) are identical again. The purpose of the repaired ship and the purpose of the refurbished Parthenon are the same as the originals.

Efficient cause: Case (a) and case (b) are once more identical. We can suppose that the same guys using the same tools did all the work in each case.

So Aristotle provides us with no grounds whatsoever to differentiate the two cases. Yet we are inclined to speak of the repaired ship as being the true ship, but no-one would say that the replacement Parthenon was "the Parthenon". In other words, despite the fact that the examples are identical in terms of your Aristotelian categories, in ordinary language we distinguish them sharply. So Aristotle has not solved the problem. He has not explained why in case (a) we go one way in ordinary language, and in case (b) we go the other way. You could claim that ordinary language is wrong, but that is implausible.

The problem of identity was not resolved by Aristotle.

Yep, you're right - I got carried off thinking in terms of bodily resurrection rather than the classical "Ship of Theseus" paradox... But then taken so strictly, the scenarios presented really don't have any exact bearing on the question of the nature of resurrection to begin with and shoudn't be included as examples of the apparent paradox because we are not left with two bodies to discern between after resurrection takes place, we only have one. So I would still offer that Aristotle solved this problem if we are talking about a scenario where after the original components are removed, some are left in a pile in the garage, others are left scattered about, and others are incorporated into new ships designed like the one the pieces were removed from and then replaced.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks vette.

I wasn't intending to apply my cases specifically to the issue of bodily resurrection, but just to point out that the issue of metaphysical identity through time is extremely complex and problematic. The moral of the story is, that anyone who rejects the doctrine of the resurrection on the basis of a claim about non-continuity of identity, is on very weak ground, since one would have to very carefully elaborate a theory of identity and prove it before one could support this, and it would need to deal satisfactorily with examples like the one I gave.