O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Hi everybody, a new member with the same old questions here. I have been aware of preterism for a couple of years now and though I find much of it appealing I however have challenges with primarily 2 issues, one being the resurrection and the other being the end of the old covenant. These may even be the same question. Searching for discussions about these issues has led me here, Im sure it will be beneficial, so just bear with me guy.
How is 1 Cor 15:12-13 " Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised" to be understood
Nice summary Jerel, particularly point 1… “end of story” indeed!
You are assuming that Christ's resurrection body is the same as ours. When in fact all it was a sign of his resurrection over the death of Adam and from Hades/separation from God.
I do believe that the Bible teaches that we will be as Christ and IF we are to physically rise from the dead, then indeed our body will be like Christ's.
I'm not too sure where the teaching that Christ's physical resurrection body was a sign of His resurrection over the death of Adam and from Hades/separation from God, comes from. We both believe that "death" was brought by sin. We both believe that Jesus settled the sin question in His passion and as a result conquered death. So, indeed His resurrection proved victory over the death of Adam but IF Adam's sin also brought physical death, then Jesus' resurrection also proved that physical death had been conquered.
IF Adam's sin also brought about physical death, I can see how physical resurrection can be a sign that Adam's sin has been dealt with. However, IF Adam's sin did not bring physical death, I fail to see how physical resurrection would show that Adam's sin had been dealt with.
Adam died that day, when his eyes were opened. Covenant death. Fellowship death. Sin death. Jesus was the FIRST to overcome THAT death.
Fixing the sin problem is the gospel of the cross, not fixing biology or planets.
That remains to be proven. That would take the full counsel of the Word to come to a conclusion and not before all verses are taken into account. So I see the possibility of what you are saying but cannot accept the assertion being used as a tool for exegesis but rather the conclusion should be subject to the proper exegesis of all Bible texts.
The language of "many other signs" shows that his resurrected presence was a sign
I can accept that the physical resurrection was a sign that sin was defeated as death was a result of sin thus the overcoming of death is a "sign" that sin has been dealt with. Nevertheless IF physical death was brought by sin, then the overcoming of sin was supposed to result in the overcoming of physical death implying Jesus' physical resurrection would not only be a sign but also the resulting end in itself of sin being dealt with. That would be dealing with sin and all its results.
He was the first fruit of the dead, the first to be raised from the dead, but not the first raised from biological death!
Indeed, Jesus was the first to rise because the sin debt had been settles. Jesus was the first to overcome death i.e. go beyond it that He should die never again. All the other who rose still died again, but not Jesus.
Have you yet considered the impact of Paul's arguments with the Thessalonians about them thinking the Day of the Lord had already come, and with Timothy regarding Hymaneus and Philetus who believed the resurrection already happened?
While there were some events and the AD70 Day of the Lord i.e. the coming referred to in Thessalonians that were not physical appearances, these people could have been the first full preterists and just like pointing to cemeteries doesn't mean anything to full preterists today, neither would it mean anything to Hymaneus. Just because there was an AD70 Day of the Lord should not imply there is no other coming or Day of the Lord. We need to have the whole counsel of Scripture before we reach a final conclusion.
Unfortunately Paul doesn't go into detail refuting Hymaneus, so we simply fill in the gaps according to our paradigm, I don't see how a concrete point can be made from this heresy. We need the full counsel of Scripture!
First... Adam did not bring in biological death.
As someone who believes in an old earth, I have no issue with death before Adam. That is what the fossil record shows. However, I don't know when Adam was created yet I see no reason to understand Gen 2-3 other than what it says i.e. Adam could eat of the tree of life and live forever but sinned and thus brought death. Whether this is conditional immortality or what, Im not too sure but there is a way to see Adam bring death by his failure to eat of the tree of life. Now whether this is fellowship life with God only or also includes physical life, that can only be concluded once the whole counsel of Scripture has been considered. I cannot accept making a conclusion that Adam was always supposed to die physically and imposing that conclusion upon other verses. Yes, there was death before Adam sinned but whether Adam was supposed to be subject to that death has to be concluded after taking into account ALL scripture. (its only a matter of having a consistent paradigm)
Yes Adam died covenantally the day he ate the fruit and IF physical death was to be a consequence of sin, the day Adam ate, he sealed his fate to physically die, thus from the day he ate, he was dead or if you like: a dead man walking.
Second. The prophets did not, ever, not once, teach a coming back to biological life.
I agree that reading the OT, it seems that it is not biological life. However, Jewish belief in resurrection believed in physical resurrection and it is in such a mind-frame that Jesus and the apostles ministered. Thus we need to acknowledge the "new" meaning that had been given to those text and see how the apostles used the OT quotations. So again, we must have the whole counsel before we can make a conclusion, not to come to a conclusion from the OT and impose it on all other verses.
Third. Jesus visibly being seen as risen from the dead biologically showed he overcame Hades and sin-death, the death of Adam, separation from the Father.
If physical death has nothing to do with sin, why would physical resurrection show that Hades and sin-death had been overcome?
God did not need Jesus, or the cross, or an empty tomb, to raise people up biologically.
Yet all those died again. But when we speak of the hope of resurrection, it is a life where death can harm you no longer yet was never available before Christ.
God has the power to take people directly, past death, as he did with Enoch.
I believe Enoch died as says the alternative rabbinic teaching and John 3:13
it wasn't simply resuscitation, that is falsely inserting into the text what isn't there...[Lazarus] was dead for four days.
As long as one is subject to death, that is what Im calling resuscitation. By resurrection I mean a state in which you will never die again. Maybe you don't agree with it but that is what I mean, and in interactions what is important is to understand what the other means.
To make the ultimate goal of redemption to be about biology, means that we are still in our sins, the cross was ineffective, because we all still die and pay the penalty of sin (biological death).
The biology is brought in because of the belief that sin affected biology, thus reversal of sin is not complete until all sin's effects are reversed thus the ultimate hope for biology.
I believe, contrary to you, that sin was dealt with fully and finally at the cross and the return of Jesus
Indeed the consummation is by the coming of Christ, which is why I believe He shall come yet again. That does not take anything away from the efficacy of the cross.
So in summary, what is important is the whole counsel of Scripture, and that counsel is not complete until we have dealt with the issues I have raised in 1 Cor 15:21, 23, 35 and 52, Acts 23:6f and Luke 20:27-38
A short observation.
"But it seems like the things Christ did (after His resurrection) were to prove that He biologically rose from the dead as opposed to proving that He "spiritually/covenantally" rose (Luke 24:39, Acts 1:3)"
You are suggesting a unique contrast here. However, the biological resurrection is, yes, "spiritually/covenantally". There is no contrast here. They are not "opposed". They are in perfect harmony. The biological resurrection of Jesus is covenantal!
What is an essential fact of His resurrection? I remember that we are told that Jesus "saw no corruption". So this is a fact that needs to be placed at the top of the list. Is the proper question to ask "Did Jesus receive the selfsame body?" or, "Why was Jesus raised from the dead before his flesh saw corruption?" (Would it make a difference to our understanding of the resurrection if Jesus was raised a few years after death, and hence after complete dissolution? Would that be "covenantal resurrection"?)
Some have said that the biological resurrection of Jesus was to demonstrate that "all Christians will get a selfsame body, even after their flesh is fully corrupted". But Paul never said it that way.
For example, did Paul ever say or even infer "as Christ received the selfsame body of flesh when he was raised from the dead before the corruption of his flesh, then you, brethren, can also receive a selfsame body of flesh when you are raised from the dead, and unlike Christ, you can even receive a selfsame body after the corruption of your flesh."?
Rather, Paul says "as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life". In other words: "As Christ was raised up from the dead before the dissolution of his flesh by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life before the dissolution of our flesh". The point is that what was evidenced to be the glory of the Father at work in the flesh and bone of Christ is understood to be the same glory of the Father at work in Christ's common flesh and bone among his brethren. And was the glory of the Father that Paul mentions quenched after the resurrection of Christ? And at the time when Paul penned the words "Christ was raised up" did he envision Christ walking on earth with flesh and bone and eating fish as needed? or, Did he envision Christ ascended into heaven seated at the right hand of the Father and no longer needing to eat dead fish (in a place where death is not permitted)?
In Paul's view, the "glory of the Father" is an essential element of the resurrection. And the pattern seems to be that this particular glory of the Father can only be found at the darkest place in the universe. Is the darkest place in the universe the tomb of Christ? So when someone is "baptized into His death" they have made a legal journey into the darkest place that has ever existed. But, "let there be light" and "the light shineth in darkness". So here is a Darkness. And a particular Light to be found only in that Darkness. A new Creation. The Glory of the Father.
The "glory of the Father" is the "power of the Father". So when the glory of the Father appeared at the darkest place in the universe, what did Death do? Can "resurrection" be anything greater than to benefit from the glory of the Father in the darkest place in the universe?
So the resurrection of Jesus, his flesh and bone still intact, is an open Proclamation to men everywhere, especially men with flesh and bone, that they can now take a journey to the very Darkest place in the universe and there participate in the glory of the Father with the assurance that they too can survive that Dark place, even with flesh and bone still intact. So the biological resurrection of Jesus, emphatically before corruption, is an outward visible declaration that the place of rejection has been transformed into to the place of acceptance, even for men who still have flesh and bone.
Do we ask "Will I get a new body of flesh after I am buried and my flesh is completely dissolved?" Or, do we ask "Can I participate in the glory of the Father before my flesh is dissolved?"
Today, some men hope for a resurrection of their flesh long after their flesh is dissolved, while others hope for resurrection before their flesh is dissolved. And some might even urge that the "resurrection is past already" and thereby insist that the "glory of the Father" is a relic of the past, never to be experienced again.
Here is a test: Should someone be encouraged to believe that the "glory of the Father" is not really "resurrection" in the fullest sense, and that one should focus on a "new body of flesh" at some time in the distant future long after one has been buried and the flesh completely dissolved? Is the grave at the local cemetery dark enough?
(You were engaging with another poster. So I will bow out.)
Thank you Jerel, OneEighthByte and Davo
All points duly noted and will not be refuted.
One point of correction, I am a partial preterist (or something close to that but certainly not a full preterist).
Now that we are in a preterist paradigm, who are the "dead" in 1 Cor 15:21, 35, 42 and 52?
Please forgive me for not reading all the responses in this lengthy thread before I insert a comment.
Can you stand one more viewpoint in your search to clarify the resurrection in preterist terms? My position on this most foundational principle of our faith has been called bizarre when I have presented it on other websites, but since we serve a God who does things in strange fashion, to our understanding, it may provide an answer for you to many of the loose ends left dangling with both full and partial preterist perspectives. I have no degree behind my name, and I do not pretend to rival the collective knowledge that others on this site possess. Actually, this stands in my favor, since God tends to hide things from the wise and prudent and to reveal them unto babes. That means women, doesn't it? I qualify.
If you are interested, I will take some time out of the workroom schedule for today and do my best to explain my understanding of this point as I see it from the scriptures.
Disclaimer: This poster tends to operate from an Asperger mindset (i.e. by seeing patterns and allusions that do not occur to others at first examination).
Had been away due to New Year celebrations. Thanks for the interest, I am open to any viewpoint and would like to hear your view? So, when ever you get the time, feel free to tell me about it.
Taking a momentary break away from the machines for this evening. I feel I have knocked on the door of the men's locker room here by attempting to offer a viewpoint that differs from the mainstream. Is it safe for a several-times grandma with a Calvinistic base who sews to support her assistant pastor husband to step in here? I'm tripping over all the intelligence I see posted in this venue, so do you mind if I beg for some help before I start?
Dear Father, I wish you had a better interpreter than me to explain what you have shown me so far. Please let these folks be gracious enough to forgive any blatant mistakes I make as I try to shed further light on this greatest hope we possess. Whatever I say that is unwise or incorrect, drive it away like the chaff before the wind. "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength and my redeemer."
Okay, here we go. The last two years of concentrated study on the preterist positions have completely erased my premillennial dispensationalist training from my youth on. For the first time since I experienced a period of revival in my faith at 15, I can say that I love the scriptures and the God of this book more than anything else in this world. I have staked a claim on that verse that "they who seek the Lord understand all things". Like Jacob, I have wrestled with God and told him that I will not let him go until He blesses me with answers.
The answers came slowly, as I was able to digest them, rather like manna on a daily basis. The resurrection soon became obvious as a topic of dissension between the full and partial preterist camps. Paul says that this subject is one of at least 6 basic foundation principles which he equates with "milk" for believers in Hebrews 5 & 6:1-2. If I can't get it straight on this most basic of doctrines, then anything I build on top of it becomes unstable. Granted, most of Paul's congregations had personal contact with him to clarify any misconceptions, but we have the benefit of the entire canon at our fingertips.
Here is my viewpoint in a nutshell as I have tried to present it on other websites: the 3 Old Testament harvest feasts in Deuteronomy 16:16 represent 3 New Testament bodily resurrection events. And yes, I mean the same-biological-body-out-of-the-dust kind of resurrection.
To arrive at this conclusion, I am operating with the following presumptions: (1) Revelation was penned and delivered to it's audience shortly before 70 AD. (2) ALL of the prophets spoke of the last days of the Jewish age (70 AD era) during their ministry (Acts 3:19-26), so it is not simply reading the subject into the prophetic books when you find references to the 70 AD holocaust in their writings. (3) The literal and the symbolic are interwoven throughout the Bible with many prophecies using both methods for interpretation. (4) God's law as given on Mt. Sinai was saturated with spiritual types and shadows, not limited to just a few such as Christ being our Passover Lamb. (5) The Greek word "Mello" in most passages indicates a soon-to-happen event. The elimination of the use of this word in my favorite translation has unfortunately done much to obscure the true intent of many verses.
Pretty basic so far, yes? It wasn't much of a stretch to believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was God's judgement on the nation of Israel for the crucifixion of His Son. And as you already wrote in your above replies Jefrey, there is an unmistakeable mass of references in the NT that tell of an imminent resurrection of the just and the unjust for that generation (Acts 24:15 for one). While full-preterists claim this resurrection to be on a spiritual level only, since they say the full graveyards are uncontestable proof, I would say that is incorrect. They aren't totally full - many are missing already since 70 AD. Those NOT present and accounted for currently in the graveyards are (#1) the whole house of ethnic Israel up to that time - just and unjust alike (as in Ezekiel 37:11, Isaiah 25:8-9 and 26:13-14, 19-21) and (#2) those strangers and Gentiles from Abraham up to Pentecost time in 70 AD who laid their faith in the God of Abraham. This is why Paul in his defense to Agrippa in Acts 26:6-8 says, "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto OUR FATHERS: (the resurrection - Acts 23:6) Unto which promise OUR TWELVE TRIBES, instantly serving God day and night, hope to arrive. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?" This is why Daniel 12:2 says that "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, (Note, it does not say there that ALL of the dead will awake, so unbelieving GENTILES are not included in this prophesied resurrection) some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This prophecy is directed to Daniel's people the Jews, and those who served the God of Israel by faith ("everyone that is found written in the book").
If you need references to prove why God would resurrect believing Gentiles from Old Testament times up to 70 AD along with ethnic Israel, the following ones listed speak of God's estimation of strangers living among or worshiping with the people of Israel, and how faith entitled believing Gentiles to share in the promises to Israel. Numbers 15:14-16, Isaiah 56:1-8, Ezekiel 47:22, Romans 4:12-18, Galatians 3:7,29.
The hump to get over is understanding that God never said there was only ONE general resurrection and white throne judgement. The book of life is not limited to one opening. In fact, Rev. 20:5 quite plainly speaks of "the FIRST resurrection", which would naturally indicate at least a second one. My husband interprets this to be the new birth being described, but the context has the verse pinpointing a particular event which will take place at the end of the millennium. And yes, I believe this teaches that 70 AD closes out a literal thousand-year millennium. But that is for another discussion.
So just how do the 3 required feasts of Deuteronomy 16:16 have any connection to resurrections, past or future? I believe God placed the stringent Levitical sacrifice procedures in place with all the attending detailed minutiae so that we, as well as Israel of ancient times, would see a living enactment of how He intended his full plan of redemption to play out through the centuries. Christ as our Passover Lamb is the most obvious picture. If you read a description of the requirements of the feast of unleavened bread celebration , it lines up perfectly with the order of events around Christ's crucifixion. Christ the sacrificial lamb shows up in Jerusalem exactly the number of days when the Passover lamb was to be "kept up" for examination before it was sacrificed. He is examined by Pilate and declared "faultless" as the Passover lamb was required to be. The very hour his crucifixion commences tallies with the sacrifice going on simultaneously in the temple. He "pours out his soul unto death" and withholds nothing of himself, even as the Passover lamb was to be consumed completely. His resurrection coincides with the end of Passover week - 3 days and 3 nights later. (Which is why I have a problem with Easter as it is commonly celebrated today from so-called "Good Friday" until Sunday morning. Can nobody do the math?)
What is most significant for this discussion is the many saints of Matthew 27:52-53 whose graves were opened with an earthquake at Christ's death and came out of the graves after Christ's resurrection and were seen walking about Jerusalem. This is without doubt a physical, biological body resurrection, "seen of many". Exclusively composed of saints, (no leaven in this Passover offering), I believe this group was the fulfillment of the OT sheaf offering - the handful of barley offered in the temple after the sabbath as a first-of-the-firstfruits offering of the harvest yet to come (Leviticus 23:9-14). This first resurrection event hasn't been disputed as to it's biological quality, as far as I know. And if this one was biological, why not the same for subsequent ones?
So, how do I arrive at a second biological resurrection in 70 AD from scripture evidence? If God has set up a pattern that shows a correlation between the Israelite crop harvest times and His harvesting of the bodies of men in history, and if the sheaf offering is equal to the Matthew 27:52-53 saints' resurrection, then we can logically expect to find a major resurrection at the time of Pentecost that would be represented by the wheat harvest celebration feast at Pentecost. I'm told that the date for this would have differed on the calendar from year to year depending on the lunar cycle, which is why the Israelites were told to number 50 days from when the sheaf offering was presented, instead of being given a date of the month for it to be observed. (By the way, this is why the verse about no man knowing the day nor the hour of Christ's second coming has been so misapplied).
The last 3 verses in Daniel 12 are the key to timing this Pentecost resurrection. Those who have made a study of the war of the Jews for any length of time have offered one interpretation after another as to how to understand this passage. Daniel is promised that he will "rest, and stand in his lot at the end of the days" (the 1,335th day, that is). This word "lot" harks back to how the land of Canaan was divided by lot to the tribes of Israel, except here, the inheritance under discussion is the true promised land of Canaan that Abraham looked for. Daniel will share in this blessing, along with those who wait and come to this particular day (as Job said he would be waiting until his change came - Job 14:14). We read in verse 11 that between the time the daily sacrifice is taken away unto the abomination making desolate is set up, there will be 1,290 days, with 45 more days until the 1,335th day.
This is all too precise for mere metaphor. The common belief is that the sacrifice being taken away refers to the time during the siege when the daily offering of the morning and evening lamb ceased to be offered because there were no more available due to the famine - August of 70 AD. This did happen, but I have read that this is not the fulfillment of this verse. Rather, it refers to the fall of 66 AD and the Eleazar-led cessation of the twice-daily offering in the temple for the emperor of Rome and the empire. Josephus tells us that this was such a provocation to Rome that he dates the start of the war from this event. From that time on, I believe there are 1,290 days until Titus shows up at the gates of Jerusalem with his legions (the abomination that makes desolate) for the final assault just at Passover in 70 AD. Strategically timed attack to maximize the number of Jews inhabiting Jerusalem that could be trapped inside. 45 days later (the 1,335th day), there you are - Pentecost. Deep into the 5 month period of demonic activity unleashed in judgement on the city's inhabitants. (Jude 6 and II Peter 2:4 both say the demons were reserved just for this purpose.) This is why the verse in Matthew 24:29 says "Immediately, but AFTER the tribulation of those days (the 45 days actually) shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,.....And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven (the Son IS the sign).....and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
So God shows up in the middle of the carnage with ten thousands of his saints to bodily resurrect the house of Israel "and also all them who love his appearing". This is the fulfillment of II Timothy 4:1, when God "judges the quick (living inhabitants of Jerusalem) and the dead (resurrected Israelites) at his appearing and his kingdom;" One is a judgement punishing Jerusalem, and the other is a judgement taking place in the heavenly realm where he divides the wheat from the tares - righteous Israel from unrighteous Israel. This is the same as the two sickles of Rev. 14: 14-20 - the hour comes when the first sickle reaps the dried harvest (again, the house of Israel resurrection), immediately followed by another sickle gathering the ripe grapes for crushing in the winepress of God's wrath (the bloodbath in Jerusalem in the final stages).
Coincidentally, the Pentecost offering was to include a totally new element of 2 LEAVENED loaves of bread in the temple. My guess is the two loaves represent Israel and Judah, with the leaven representing the unrighteous Jewish element which would be included in this resurrection. Or possibly it stands for the believing Gentiles up to that point who are included in this resurrection. Maybe both?
There is another intriguing question that serves to bolster this Israelite 70 AD resurrection theme. It involves the body count at Jerusalem at the end of the siege. There is a difference of somewhere between 1.2 and 2 million missing people unaccounted for at the end of Jerusalem's siege, using Josephus' number of casualties. What happened to these people, the ones who were in the city when Titus came at Passover, but who WEREN'T there when the city was finally taken 5 months later? If almost 3 million were there to begin with, and only 1,197,000 (total of dead and those taken captive combined) were counted at the close of the siege, just where did these Jewish people disappear to? I know Titus allowed some to escape past the Zealot forces, and some escaped and were killed for the gold they had swallowed, etc., but it doesn't add up to anything near 1.2 - 2 million. If anyone wants to know how I arrive at those figures, they are formulated using Josephus' casualty records for the war in Ussher's Annals of the World. It's not scripture, but it sure fits the Israelite resurrection theme.
Here's another tidbit from the current news that also fits the topic. There is a museum in the heart of old Jerusalem today that is actually somebody's house. They have asked permission and done excavation through the years to a level so deep down that they have confirmed by testing that they have relics from as far back as Solomon's temple era, with burial vaults that are, curiously, all empty. Hmmm. I know, it's not scripture, but still.....
It used to stump me that we still have preserved mummies from ancient Egypt around. If a bodily physical resurrection took place in 70 AD, as I knew the Bible was teaching, then the mummy artifacts seemed to refute the whole thing. Unless you believe that it was only the house of Israel and the righteous Gentiles who were included then. This means that God in mercy has allowed the judgement of dead unbelieving Gentiles to wait until the close of history, at whatever year that happens to be.
If the pattern of harvest feasts holds true to form, then the 3rd and last resurrection is the event we are to experience in our future, and God will probably time it to fall at the feast of tabernacles, the feast of ingathering. There are a few scripture references that indicate to me that this fits God's pattern. Zechariah 14 describes how all the nations will come against Jerusalem to battle, etc. It is a description of the Jerusalem siege at the beginning of the chapter, but the post-siege period in verse 16 speaks of the nations going up from year to year to keep the feast of tabernacles. It mentions the feast 3 times over. Why this one feast ONLY and not the others which used to be required? I don't believe it is because the Lord wants us to revert to animal sacrifices. I think he is underlining this date to let us know he attaches an importance to it for our sake. Think of the crops themselves that the land of Israel would produce at this time. It's a mixed variety, date, pomegranate, grape, etc. Compared to the one crop item of wheat for the Pentecost harvest feast (Israel as the main focus), this variety looks like it represents all the Gentile nations being resurrected, believers from 70 AD onward, and unbelievers from creation onward.
I think the Rev. 10:3-4 verses are probably the only ones in the book that have any prophetic reference to our time. The seven thunders utter their voices, and John is told to seal up what they say and write them not. Sealing something, as in Daniel, is an indication that the time of fulfillment is not at hand yet. Whatever was uttered by these symbolic thunders, those people to whom the book was written did not need to concern themselves with it because it wasn't relevant to them.
My apologies, I didn't intend to write a book. I think the Bible in Proverbs says something like "withdraw your foot from your neighbor's house lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee." So before you start hating me, I will check out and yield the floor to someone with more restraint.
Thank you for sharing you thoughts about resurrection and I dont mind the length, I think it was necessary for your view to be better understood.
I will need time to digest it but if you could clarify if you see e.g. 1 Cor 15 as finding fulfillment in AD70 that would help.
I presume you are referring to the I Cor. 15 selected verses you mentioned above?
As for v. #21, I believe the type of resurrection it refers to is both spiritual and physical. Christ is the life-giver of both types, just as Adam was the death-dealer of both the spiritual and physical. This verse could have a generic application to all 3 resurrection events listed in my earlier post . Since some have made a real distinction between the the phrase "OF the dead" as opposed to "FROM AMONG the dead", I notice that this particular verse uses the word "OF", if that makes a difference to anyone.
Verse #35 I understand to be a generic description of any resurrected physical body, including Christ's. We all would like to know just what an existence in a glorified body is like. For now, we have the promise that it will duplicate that of the captain of our salvation. Heb. 2:17 says that "...in ALL things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,..." This reference and others tell me that my resurrection body also will be like that of my brother Jesus. A "joint-heir" shares an equal portion of the inheritance with the other siblings. Jesus is not ashamed to be called my brother. So it is not presumptive to expect an identical glorified form such as he possessed the day of his resurrection. Flesh and bones - no blood. Spirit animated. "...no more to return to corruption." (Acts 13:34) There is no double-jeopardy for a resurrected person. They cannot die twice, anymore than Jesus could die twice. (Rom. 6:9-10) This applies to Lazarus, Tabitha, the widow's son, the Matt 27 saints' resurrections, etc. To deny this point is also to deny the eternal security of our salvation, which it is compared to in Romans 6.
Verse #42 also covers the same process involved in all 3 resurrection events I listed above. The "IT" that is sown in corruption is the same cellular-formed "IT" that is raised in incorruptibility. Paul goes to some lengths to make a list of other physical body forms, such as birds, fish, beasts, stars, heavenly bodies, etc. So we are not dealing with something totally invisible here. He is trying to describe how our glorified body will incorporate the same visible form, but with perfected spiritual abilities and attributes after it is resurrected. I don't mind waiting in God's recycle bin until resurrection day for us. He took extreme measures against Jerusalem in 70 AD to illustrate that our bodies are the real temple He intended to dwell in. I don't read anywhere in scripture that He has lost His "desire for the work of His hands". And our bodies are definitely that. He not only cares what I do with this body of mine, He cares what happens to it, and has provided the means to make all things new.
Verse #51 and #52 are read together as a sentence. Let me do a paraphrase here. "Look, guys, this is a little weird, but I'll explain it to you. Not all of us are going to die before Christ comes at the end of our Jewish age, but I can assure you, that doesn't mean we all will not eventually share in getting our changed bodies. All the time it will take to change and raise dead bodies is a blink of an eye. When the last trumpet sounds, that's when the dead rise with bodies that will never die again." You would think that the seventh trumpet of Revelation is the only one referred to in this verse. However, the feast of tabernacles also had a trumpet blowing ritual on the first day of that seventh month. Also in this seventh month during the year of Jubilee, on the tenth day (which would typically be the Day of Atonement on other years), the trumpet of the Jubilee was to sound throughout all the land, proclaiming liberty to all the inhabitants of the land. Why couldn't this also qualify as a fulfillment of "a trumpet shall sound..." ? It fits the pattern of 3 resurrections that I described above.
Okay, I'll stop for now. Don't want to be tedious to anybody with this.
I thought you made a couple of interesting comments. The first one I think is important to understand Paul in his view of sanctification:
"Flesh and bones - no blood. Spirit animated." This was essentially Paul's approach to how to overcome sin. Will power isn't enough. It takes effort, but only those additionally animated by God can do it. That animation comes through God's pneumas being grafted over our pneumas, so that we have a different level of life force.
But, that goes to my second point:
"The "IT" that is sown in corruption is the same cellular-formed "IT" that is raised in incorruptibility. Paul goes to some lengths to make a list of other physical body forms, such as birds, fish, beasts, stars, heavenly bodies, etc. So we are not dealing with something totally invisible here."
I think you are completely missing the point of Paul saying that the body you are going to receive is a pneumas body. In fact, you completely skipped his point on this. Here's what he actually says:
1Co 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
1Co 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
1Co 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
1Co 15:39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
The body you are raised with is a pneumas body. It is completely different than a flesh and blood body. If you know of a different reference for how to understand pneumas I'd like to see it. As far as I can tell, from various sources I referenced earlier, it comes from the dominant cosmology of that age: Stoicism. If Stoicism defines the term pneumas, then in their worldview it is physical and invisible. Like wind. What other definition would you use and who defines it for us?
I like what you said in a earlier reply, that many times the answers are found in the simple rather than the complex. Like Einstein's formula. Christ himself is our definition. "I AM the resurrection and the life..." All I need do is turn a laser-like focus on his resurrected, glorified body for an example of the pattern he will duplicate for us. I read someone else's observations on this topic, I believe on the Berean Bible Church website, where they covered point by point all the details that they could find in scripture describing Christ in post-resurrection form. By triangulating John 7:39 with John 20:22 and Luke 24:26, I can understand that this resurrected body the disciples personally encountered WAS his glorified body, even before his final farewell ascension to the Father on the mountain. Neither did it morph into something different once he passed through the cloud out of their sight. (Eph. 4:9-10)
I realize that some who read this may smirk mentally, thinking "Yeah, once a premil dispy, always a premil dispy. They just never can dump that bio-rising thing." I would respond to that thought by repeating the instructions we have been given to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." If God tells me from His word that a biological resurrection is not in His plans, I have no problem ditching my hopes for one, but everything I read in His Word tells me the opposite. There are elements of truth that exist in just about every wayward doctrine. Remember Paul on Mars hill addressing his audience using their own poets to prove his point. My job as a good steward of the Word is to identify the truthful parts and cling to those. If the result looks more like a patchwork quilt, so be it. Fortunately, I love to quilt!
Just out of curiosity, how does your concept of the spiritual body differ from transmigration?