Resurrection in the NT

[Greektim]

So it seems a firestorm of sorts has begun from a full preterist wanting to eschew the ancient Christian view of the bodily resurrection of the believer.

So I thought we could just lay out a simple Scriptural argument that says what some don't like.

Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

&

Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

What could this mean other than a bodily, physical resurrection?

Here is a short article by N. T. Wright entitled "Heaven is Not Our Home". It is a condensed version of his longer books. It is a good read for those wanting to understand the basics of resurrection and eschatology. I especially like the subtitle: "The bodily resurrection is the good news of the gospel—and thus our social and political mandate"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html

 

[tyndale1946]

So it seems a firestorm of sorts has begun from a full preterist wanting to eschew the ancient Christian view of the bodily resurrection of the believer.

So I thought we could just lay out a simple Scriptural argument that says what some don't like.

Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

&

Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

What could this mean other than a bodily, physical resurrection?

Here is a short article by N. T. Wright entitled "Heaven is Not Our Home". It is a condensed version of his longer books. It is a good read for those wanting to understand the basics of resurrection and eschatology. I especially like the subtitle: "The bodily resurrection is the good news of the gospel—and thus our social and political mandate"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html

I am of Historical Partial Preterist brethren and the resurrection physically or not does not bother me. I believe that John says it the best.

I John 3:2 Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be just like him; for we shall see him as he is.

To John it did not matter. John even say in the scriptures that he does not know. So why all the bickering and fighting? There is one thing he definitely does know we shall be just like Jesus. Whatever body he has John says we also will have. The same Jesus that ascended will descend in like manner. I guess nothing has changed since the time John penned down those words over 2000 years ago.

II Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

 

[Aaron]

I am of Historical Partial Preterist brethren and the resurrection physically or not does not bother me. I believe that John says it the best.

I John 3:2 Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be just like him; for we shall see him as he is.

To John it did not matter. John even say in the scriptures that he does not know. So why all the bickering and fighting? There is one thing he definitely does know we shall be just like Jesus. Whatever body he has John says we also will have. The same Jesus that ascended will descend in like manner. I guess nothing has changed since the time John penned down those words over 2000 years ago.

II Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

Does it matter that the Resurrection of Christ was bodily?

 

[tyndale1946]

Does it matter that the Resurrection of Christ was bodily?

True!... But did he return in the same body after he presented himself to the Father? He told Mary touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father... Why did he tell her that?... He also said to God his Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with thee before the world was.

 

[Greektim]

True!... But did he return in the same body after he presented himself to the Father? He told Mary touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father... Why did he tell her that?... He also said to God his Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with thee before the world was.

Why does that verse about Jesus' glory have to do w/ a body??? Why can't it just refer to glory?

 

[Aaron]

True!... But did he return in the same body after he presented himself to the Father? He told Mary touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father... Why did he tell her that?... He also said to God his Father, glorify me with the glory that I had with thee before the world was.

So? It's still a bodily resurrection.

 

[JamesL]

The resurrection of the dead is is foundational to the gospel itself.
If one is not certain of the bodily resurection, his foundation is weak

 

[asterisktom]

The resurrection of the dead is is foundational to the gospel itself.
If one is not certain of the bodily resurection, his foundation is weak

Christ's resurrection had to be bodily just as His crucifixion had to be bodily.

Christ's resurrection is not the same as ours.

Is your resurrection to be a testimony to others of your deity?
That you had conquered death?
Will you show to others the scars and disfiguration you suffered as a proof of this?

 

[Greektim]

Christ's resurrection had to be bodily just as His crucifixion had to be bodily.

Christ's resurrection is not the same as ours.

Is your resurrection to be a testimony to others of your deity?
That you had conquered death?
Will you show to others the scars and disfiguration you suffered as a proof of this?

Come on, Tom. What about the 2 passages I mentioned from Rom. 8?

 

[JamesL]

Christ's resurrection had to be bodily just as His crucifixion had to be bodily.

Christ's resurrection is not the same as ours.

Is your resurrection to be a testimony to others of your deity?
That you had conquered death?
Will you show to others the scars and disfiguration you suffered as a proof of this?

Christ's resurection is exactly the same as ours. I was engaged in this matter a couple of months ago, but it was shut down prematurely. I'd like to bring that discussion here.

Here is a link to the thread:
www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=92916

As for your questions, - if I were to raise myself from the dead, it would be a testimony of my deity. But scripture says that Christ raised Himself from the dead. Nowhere are we told that we raise ourselves. The Spirit who raised Him from the dead will also give life to our mortal bodies.

He conquered death for us.

Scripture is silent on the matter of our scars.

But I would hope your position would have more thrust than a few philosophical rantings designed to back someone into the proverbial corner.

 

[JamesL]

From the previously mentioned thread where I was discussing the resurrection:

The foundation of the resurrection is Christ.

1Cor 15:
12 - Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

22 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


We will be raised in the same exact manner that He was raised

Philippians 3:20-21 we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.....Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body

Romans 6:5 - For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection


So did Jesus receive a different body, or was it the same body which died?

Jesus said that He would raised "This Temple", speaking of His body - John 2:
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.


We can see that His resurrection body was the exact same body which died.

Luke 24:
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

43 And he took it, and did eat before them.


He went to great pains to demonstrate that it was the same body. He said "touch Me" and ate with them.

And He also called His resurrection body FLESH and BONE - verse 39


Acts 10:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.


And in that same manner which Christ was raised, we will be also.

Romans 8:11 - But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

This quickening of our mortal body is not us receiving a different type of body, it will be the same body which dies - in the same exact manner of resurrection as His.

We will be raised in the same body we have now. He will give life to THIS body. Flesh and bone


Many like to reference John 20:19 as support for this notion of a "spiritual body" as if it is somehow a hybrid spirit matter, not quite flesh.....

The argument is that Jesus walked through a wall. That is supposed proof that his body is a spirit form. Yet, John never said that Jesus walked through a wall.

John 20:19 - Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.


Where does He walk through a wall? He didn't have to walk through a wall. You might ask "well how else did He get in there?"

Consider:

Luke 24:31 - And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

The same one who walked on water, calmed a sea, fed 5,000 men with a single sack lunch, breathed the Holy Spirit onto His disciples and raised Himself from the dead, and vanished from sight. This same One had to enter through a wall?

He simply appeared and disappeared at will. He's God, for crying out loud. The Great I AM, who manifest Himself in a burning bush, caused fire and brimstone to rain down, made a donkey speak, and protected a few young Jewish boys in a fiery furnace.

He simply appeared in their midst.

Continued.....

 

[JamesL]

In the thread I mentioned previously, I was asked about 1Cor 15:35-50

Just a reminder, I was addressing a specific issue (spiritual body) with a specific person. So keep that in mind while reading.

before addressing the glories of the sun, moon, etc (1Corinthians 15:38-41), I would like to address the other verses from 35-50. There are several references to "this word", whereby I mean the Greek word.

As you probably know, one Greek word can be translated into several English words, so I referenced my Greek concordance to find where the same Greek word was used in multiple places


35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

Here, Paul is simply saying that just as a seed is planted, and out of it comes the grain, so it is with our body. It will be sown in the ground, then out of it will spring womething more wonderful.

What follows is a series of contrasts in order that we can garner the truth of what our resurrection body will be like. I believe it is very helpful to look at how these Greek words were used elsewhere in the NT, in order to get a better idea of what they might mean here in this list of contrasts.


40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Celestial - (literally - on heavenly) contrasted against Terrestrial (lit. - earthly), both words are used in John 3:12, where Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

Both words are also used in Philippians 2:10, where Paul wrote, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"

It doesn't seem to have any special signiicance in either of these contexts, other than to say one is from the earth, and one is from heaven. In other words, one comes from our earthly parents, the other from the Spirit who will give life to our mortal bodies (Rom 8:3)

But beyond those verses which contain both words, there are a few other verses which contain the second, earthly:

2Cor 5:1 - For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

James 3:15 - This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

Philippians 3:19 - Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.

What I gather from these other verses is that terrestrial, or earthly, denotes sinfully inclined, self serving Compare that to how Paul spoke of the "body of death" in Romans 7:14-25, and the contrast would seem, to me, the opposite - not sinfully inclined


42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption

The note for verse 42 also appiles to verses 50, 53-54

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption
corruption, or corruptible - contrasted against incorruption, or incorruptible

Two related words are corruptible and corruption, and the other two are incorruptible and incorruption. It helps to compare:

Romans 1:23 - And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Romans 9:25 - And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

1Peter 1:4 - To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you

1Peter 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

The gist of the corruptible is that it fades away, or dies. In sharp contrast to incorruptible, which does not fade away. In 1Peter 3:4, he uses incorruptible as a synonym for undefiled. So if incorruptible means undefiled, then corruptible should mean defiled.

continued.....

 

[JamesL]

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
It is much easier to demonstrate dishonour than glory, for glory is spoken of so many times in the NT, close to 170 times. Nevertheless, both words are used together elsewhere:

2Corinthians 6:8 - By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true

There isn't much to go on as far as these words being used together, and glory is used in more than one way - repsect, high esteem, god-honouring, majesty, praise, brightness, etc. So in my estimation, it is a little fruitless to gather an understanding of glory apart from the contrast against dishonour.

Dishonour (Gr - atimia) is used in a way of disrespect and shame, such as in 1Cor 11:14, speaking of long hair being shameful to a man. But, in Romans 1:26, it is translated as vile:

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile (dishonouring) affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature

A related word (atimazo - lit. I dishonour), is also used in Romans 1 in the same fashion, and again in Romans 2:23 in the context of dishonouring God

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves

Romans 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

What I see in these verses is that the dishonouring is related to sinfulness. Even in other uses of these two words, it is related to sinfulness, as in Mark 12:4, where the vineyard workers beat the slave and sent him away "shamefully" handled

Also in verse 43 is the contrast between weakness and power. Again, a difficulty arises in ascertaining a meaning of power. The Greek word is dunamis, which means "able" Several English words, such as dynamite and dynamic come from this word. It is used 3 times in 1Corinthians 12, in the context of spiritual gifts, and is translated "miracles" (verses 10, 28, 29).

Contrasted against this dunamis is weakness. This word (astheneia), is unsed mostly in the form of infirmity, ailment, and disease:

Matt 8:17 - That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our "infirmities", and bare our sicknesses.

Luke 5:15 But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.

Luk 13:11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of "infirmity" eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.
Luke 13:12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine "infirmity".

There are several other verses which use this word in the same manner - Luke 8:2, John 5:5, John 11:4, Acts 28:9, Galatians 4:13 & 1Tim 5:23. It has every indication that weakness is akin to ailment, while power would be the oppostie. But this ailment is also spoken of in a way that is pertinent to this use in 1Cor 15:

Romans 6:19 I speak after the manner of men because of the "infirmity" of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

Here, Paul is speaking about this infirmity as if it relates to sin. The because of the "infirmity" of the flesh, we have yielded our members to iniquity. There is a very common idea that runs through all of the contrasts listed thus far - the body which is sown is corruptible, dishonourable (or shameful), weak (or diseased).

It is sin which causes corruption, shame and disease. Not only our own sins, but the one of Adam, by which the whole world was made to feel the effects of sin. I will also make another reference to this later.

The contrast is incorruption, glory, and power. I don't believe these to be magical words, understood apart from the contrasted sin-wrecked condition of the first body. The body which is made to "stand up" (resurrected), simply put, will be raised without the effects of sin.

All of these words are used in other places in relation to sin. As mentioned previously, 1Peter 3:4 uses incorruption when speaking of the inner person of a believer, which has been washed and renewed in regeneration (Titus 3:5). Interestingly, the word which Paul used for regeneration (palingenesia) is used only one other time in the NT (Matt 19:28), where Jesus is speaking of the resurrection. He called it the regeneration (KJV), or the renewal of all things (NIV).

The same thing which happens to our inner man in regeneration is the same thing which will happen to our body - washed, cleansed, spotless.

continued.....

 

[asterisktom]

Christ's resurection is exactly the same as ours. I was engaged in this matter a couple of months ago, but it was shut down prematurely. I'd like to bring that discussion here.

Here is a link to the thread:
www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=92916

As for your questions, - if I were to raise myself from the dead, it would be a testimony of my deity. But scripture says that Christ raised Himself from the dead. Nowhere are we told that we raise ourselves. The Spirit who raised Him from the dead will also give life to our mortal bodies.

He conquered death for us.

Scripture is silent on the matter of our scars.

But I would hope your position would have more thrust than a few philosophical rantings designed to back someone into the proverbial corner.

Last comment first, James. I don't know you personally, but I suppose you are probably, from what I have read from you previously, a pretty decent person. With that in mind - if you really do want a discussion on this - don't write about me "ranting". That is merely perjorative. And I am not trying to back anyone in the corner. From my perspective you are already in a corner. (Of course, you would say the same for me).

Let's be respectful. The topic is a good one. There is no reason why the discussion can't be either.

Please consider these two quotes from you:
1. "Christ's resurection is exactly the same as ours."
2. "But scripture says that Christ raised Himself from the dead. Nowhere are we told that we raise ourselves."

And yet you do not concede the point that these two resurrections are not exactly the same?

 

[JamesL]

But what about the last contrast, which is "natural" versus "spiritual" ?
I believe this is simply another contrast which follows the previous three. And here in this contrast is the most telling evidence that these contrasts should all be understood the same way: sin-wrecked verses NOT sin-wrecked.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

This same exact contrast is made in more than one place in the NT, and all have the same connotation:

This word for "natural" is psuchikos, which literally means "soul-like". This word is used a total of 6 times in the New Tesatment - 3 times here in 1Cor 15 (twice in verse 44, then in verse 46). The other three times are:

1Corinthians 2:14 But the "natural" man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

James 3:15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, "sensual", devilish.

Jude 19 These be they who separate themselves, "sensual", having not the Spirit.

In these three uses, the implication is clear. The natural is earthly, carnal, sinful, in stark contrast with heavenly, or righteous or not inclined toward sin.

We see this contrast between "soul" and "spirit" in verse 45. Not speaking of a human dichotomy, but a contrast between soul-like, or earthly, and spiritual, or heavenly:
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

This soul/spirit contrast in verse 45 is sandwiched between two references to the contrast betwee naturla and spiritual:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

He then equates natural with earthy, and spiritual with heavenly:

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Thread was closed at this point, but I'd like to continue working this out here

 

[JamesL]

Last comment first, James. I don't know you personally, but I suppose you are probably, from what I have read from you previously, a pretty decent person. With that in mind - if you really do want a discussion on this - don't write about me "ranting". That is merely perjorative. And I am not trying to back anyone in the corner. From my perspective you are already in a corner. (Of course, you would say the same for me).

Let's be respectful. The topic is a good one. There is no reason why the discussion can't be either.

Please consider these two quotes from you:
1. "Christ's resurection is exactly the same as ours."
2. "But scripture says that Christ raised Himself from the dead. Nowhere are we told that we raise ourselves."

And yet you do not concede the point that these two resurrections are not exactly the same?

I agree that it is a very god topic, and I wasn't trying to be disrespectful with my use of "rantings". My emphasis was aimed at philosophical arguments, which I've seen enough of around here. Apology offered.

But no, I do not concede the point.

What He accomplished in His resurrection, and the nature of it, are not the same issue.

Suppose two people pick apples from a tree. One is trying to accomplish the feeding of his family, and the other is trying to accomplish the creation of an autumn collage with leaves and pumpkins.

They both picked the same apples in the same way, but with varying accomplishments. I know it may not be the best example of an analogy, but I'm sure you get the point

 

[Greektim]

So is anyone else going to ask Asterisktom to deal w/ the OP? It seems he has me on ignore.

 

[JamesL]

So it seems a firestorm of sorts has begun from a full preterist wanting to eschew the ancient Christian view of the bodily resurrection of the believer.

So I thought we could just lay out a simple Scriptural argument that says what some don't like.

Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

&

Rom 8:19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

What could this mean other than a bodily, physical resurrection?

Here is a short article by N. T. Wright entitled "Heaven is Not Our Home". It is a condensed version of his longer books. It is a good read for those wanting to understand the basics of resurrection and eschatology. I especially like the subtitle: "The bodily resurrection is the good news of the gospel—and thus our social and political mandate"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/april/13.36.html

asterisktom,
have you seen that this post? Any reply?

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom,
have you seen that this post? Any reply?

No, I haven't seen it. I got tired of being insulted and arguing with this person so I put him on ignore. Feel free to summarize and repeat any point he may have.

 

[Greektim]

No, I haven't seen it. I got tired of being insulted and arguing with this person so I put him on ignore. Feel free to summarize and repeat any point he may have.

Hi pot. Meet kettle.

I only insulted 1 post saying it was an asinine conclusion. He then responded calling me asinine. I attacked his position. He attacked the person. And he puts me on ignore. Laughable.

He also didn't like that he had no real way of objecting to the issues I raised against his view of resurrection. In fact, I turned his argument against tradition on its head, and he didn't like it.

And I actually gave him more credit before this.