The Spiritual Body -- Physical or Non-Physical?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mental

Yikes! Too much information! My head hurts.

I read through your posts, and what can I say. You’ve definitely taken the time to understand this and you have heavy weights behind your position (Wright, Harris, Fee, Thiselton, etc). I see the arguement better now I think. I’m going to take the time to read through both resurrection books from Wright and Harris. I want to see their whole position on this topic. Thanks.

I took all the posts from another thread that deal with this precise issue after Praxeas requested the evidence be presented alone together on a thread apart from the original one we both were involved with.

By the way, “mental” refers to my unstable psychological nature and not my intellectual prowess.

That is cool!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here is precisely what happened: (If I am wrong it is not because of the reason you propose.) I researched the net and found what the scholars said about the term SPIRITUAL. Maybe I came across the wrong scholars. How would we know? But what I personally studied without Greek knowledge was reaffirmed by what these scholars said.

I found NO OTHER SOURCES THAT SAID DIFFERENTLY. That is why I said I may have stumbled across the WRONG ones.

At any rate, all I can go by is my sincere attempt to study the chapter and context, and then see what scholars had to say, and I did that.

I did not read several different versions of Greek scholarship, that include any conclusions you propose, and then choose to stick with the ones that favoured my position. All I found were scholars who validated what I already saw.

If I should have continued to look, then I should have continued to look. You believe I stopped since I haphazardly found what I looked for. I claim I honestly looked for scholarly opinions and felt what I found was that.



Right. Not only that, though. I prayed about my research and asked the Lord to lead me. I always pray like that. Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil. Do not allow me to go into error, and help me be open for correction if I am not presently open enough. I believe God answers those prayers. I believe it so much that if I am STILL not open enough for correction, God will eventually work me to be that way.

I also believe the Lord guides us in our personal study without the Greek scholars. I have no personal preference on the issue. So that is not a factor. The issue is what does the bible say in my honest assessment?

Brother Blume the main issue is that you just don't know if they are agreeing with the original writers intent for the word pneumatikos. They believe that Paul is speaking of the natural body being motivated by animal impulses and drives, you in your posts agree with that thought, and also that the spiritual body is being motivated by the spirit, driven, animated. Those are your thoughts linked with your scholars. You touch nothing on what Paul is trying to say, concerning what is the type of that body. If you look at a Wigram and Green, New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon, page 726, for the word pneumatikos, I'll quote, "of the Spirit" first description of the word pneumatikos. That means Brother Blume, that pneumatikos can be used to describe the condition of a person, or a thing, and if those things are of the spirit. Not only in origin, but creation. To offer up spiritual sacrifices are not physically seen. Are your spiritual sacrifices physical? Are you a physical priest? Was Jerusalem physically Sodom? Or did she have the attributes of Sodom a city that had long been destroyed. Therefore the spiritual body of 1st Corinthians 15 has spiritual attributes which make it spiritual the opposite of natural, base, lower form of the dust, which would return to whence it came. The pneumatikon soma is of the spirit.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Okay. But consider this. Are you rejecting what they have to say simply because they disagree with your conclusions?

No, because they disagree with the context of what Paul is trying to convey to his first century readers. Paul doesn't go from answering the question in 1st Cor 15:35, with what body do they come? To How Will That Body Be Influenced, Motivated, and Driven?

Originally Posted by mfblume

What about you? Could it be you do not want to believe we shall have a physical resurrection?

Are you kidding me? Brother if Pre-Tribulation Dispensational Futurism was able to be proven in the Bible, book, chapter, and verse, I would be on it.

Originally Posted by mfblume

You may respond and say you only want what God wants you to want. Well, I feel the same way.

Brother Blume, after all I have experienced in dealing with Partial Preterists is that they are only on a learning curve. Eventually they place all the pieces together and come into Fulfilled Eschatology.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But in an issue where a single Greek word determines one way or another, that is beyond doctrine. Doctrine is something like whether or not Acts 2:38 was for Jews alone in the first century or for everyone. That is not based upon one Greek word. In other cases it is argued upon one greek word KAI.

But either way, I can ask the exact same things to you that you ask of me.

No doubt, but you are not just dealing with just one Greek word. You are dealing with and entire chapter, and its context, which because of your futurist leanings you take away from what the writer is trying to convey.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I see exactly what you are saying. I just do not agree that is the case. And I am sure you think the same with my assessment of why you believe what you believe.

I believe what I believe because of the time language contained in 1st Corinthians 15, and placing the apostle's whole argument against the naysayers of his time within its proper context.

Originally Posted by mfblume

No. I told you in this post that these are THE ONLY findings I came across. And THEY HAPPENED to agree with me.

So I was right.

Originally Posted by mfblume

While it may be a case of more than one person, me, being wrong, what about the other conclusion? Maybe I am right and so are they? All we can do is be as honest as we can despite our humanity, in prayer and faith, and go after the truth. I did not WANT to believe anything one way or the other.

Brother Blume, you not wanting to be right one way or another? Brother Blume, you have said more than once that there must be a physical resurrection. You fought against a spiritual resurrection for a long time, it goes part and parcel with your disdain for Fulfilled Eschatology. Which I believe is more a personal issue than a theological issue. Yet, I will leave it at that.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I can say the same for you. I changed on many areas of prophecy before you did. That does not make me better, but it does show I have proved, as have you, that I am open for change.

Brother Blume, changed before I did? No doubt, definitely no doubt about that! I hope to sweet Jesus, that I never get that much change going in my walk with Christ.

Originally Posted by mfblume

It does make sense to see how both men (1 Cor 2) and bodies (1 Cor 15) are either driven and motivated by the natural or the Spirit of God. And yet what about 1 Cor 10? MEAT AND DRINK. Are they not physical? Or are they composed of spirit?

Brother Blume we offer up pneumatikos sacrifices and we are a priesthood. Yet, those sacrifices are not visible as the sacrifices of the second temple.
The apostle also tells the Corinthians if they knew that they were the temple of God, were they a physical temple? What about spiritual understanding? All this means is that they are "of the Spirit." Putting on immortality isn't putting on some sort of super flesh, it was an issue of having the fullness of eternal life. Keep in mind that they only had the earnest of the inheritance which the Greek word for the English word "earnest" is still used in modern Greek. It means the part of the engagement. Paul is dealing with that in 1st Corinthians 15. All would culminate at the last trumpet.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And being led by the Spirit as 1 Cor 2 says certainly occurs before we experience any deaths when you believe we shall have a spirit body. But the same argument can be turned against yourself? If Paul was a spiritual man before his yet-future resurrection, being spiritually empowered by an unseen force already occurred in Paul's life, so why need it again in Paul's future?

This doesn't take away from my argument, but helps it. Yes, if Paul had all these things what did he lack? Jesus said His kingdom was not of the physical world, or else His servants would of fought physically so He wouldn't of been handed over to the Jews. Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not from the physical. Therefore how can after 2,000 years and counting with no end in sight, can a physical Kingdom be part of Jesus' plan? Paul wasn't waiting to get a physical change, but a change that would give him immortality the full payment of eternal life. After Paul states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, he goes on to say that they should not all sleep? Was he taking about taking sleep in rest? No, he was talking about those who waited in the grave in sleep. After the last trumpet would sound they would awake to eternal life and immortality, and then it would be fulfilled what was written.
Death where is thy sting, and grave where is they victory. No one from that time forward would ever have to go to the grave to sleep ever again. They were changed in a moment at the blink of an eye. Not to supernatural glowing orbs liken to E.T., but taking the inheritance of eternal life. therefore after it would be blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them. With the last trumpet blast, they would be changed incorruptible, and they would from that time forward never go to the grave to sleep to await anything, but to proceed at the time of death to go and be with the Lord.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Law is spiritual and Paul is carnal.

We know Paul was spiritual. So why does he say he is carnal? He obviously referred to another aspect of his being that was not spiritual. And that would be his thinking in his rhetoric as a person who served in oldness of the letter.

Sorry that isn't Paul talking about himself, but that another subject.

Anyway...

Originally Posted by mfblume

HOW does it modify the noun, though?

By description, like there once was a super intelligent Newfie.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I am seeing Jesus described as having resurrected with a body that begins the theme in the chapter concerning the nature of our resurrections. Paul narrows the theme down to what body do those come with in the resurrection at his coming. He does not speak about what the body is composed of and then switches to something different. he never did say what they were composed of. He spoke of celestial bodies and terrestrial. He said nothing about their composition. He spoke of bodies of corruption and of incorruption. Dishonour and glory. Are they compositional materials? Weakness and power. And IN THAT CONTEXT, he adds natural and spiritual.

Interesting how you skipped 1st Corinthians 15:39 in your above explanation.

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Corinthians 15:37-44 KJV (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: (38) But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. (39) All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. (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. (41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. (42) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: (43) It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (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.

Nothing is said about composition in any of this.

Then you need to read it again.

So, do you no longer believe in a physical resurrection, but believe that the natural body is the un-regenerated man, and the spiritual body is the regenerated born again believer? I know some Preterists who believe it that way although I disagree with that line of thought.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And then he makes ONE statement that you seem to claim speaks for all the chapter, after several statements that speak nothing about composition.

Well, it does speak for the context for the chapter, and if you read the whole chapter in context you can see how it is talking about going from one condition to the next, one higher than the other. From mortal to immortal, from base to exhalation, from the physical to the spiritual, invisible unseen.

Originally Posted by mfblume

1 Corinthians 15:47 KJV (47) The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Because Adam was made of the earth earthy, despite all the previous examples that say NOTHING about composition, you take the far greater minority of one reference to Adam's body and claim the entire context is about composition. The majority of the context shows it is not composition at all.

Not about composition?

Maybe you should try another translation

1Co 15:47-49 The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord out of heaven; as is the earthy, such are also the earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are also the heavenly; and, according as we did bear the image of the earthy, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly.

Brother Blume, that pretty much explains composition very nicely.

Originally Posted by mfblume

In fact, Jesus is contrasted from Adam. Adam was EARTHY and of the earth. But Jesus is the LORD FROM HEAVEN. The actual contrast here is made against Jesus being LORD. Is LORD compositional material?

Brother Blume, you always have a way of making the simple complex.
Paul is not concentrating on Lordship here, but the issue is about the spirit realm, opposed to the material realm. One mortal, the other a quickening Spirit, which creates immortality, and eternal life. The new Adam of the new creation. Adam originated from dirt, and Jesus originated from heaven. Those who had the image of the natural earth creation, would take on the image of heaven's creation. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Nothing is said about his flesh in that contrast of LORD. We read of earth and earthy with Adam, but what is explicitly stated about Jesus as per COMPOSITION? Nothing! So is Paul saying EARTH is a material that is contrasted from other material that is not physical?

And if we really study what Paul said about Jesus, He was speaking of Jesus Christ's resurrected body. The body of Adam from the earth is not contrasted with Jesus' body from Mary, but His body from the TOMB! This is where divine flesh proponents go into error. Jesus' BODY is the resurrected body that came from the grave when he arose. That brings us back to the start of the chapter where we distinctly read the disciples saw the body from the tomb.

God bless!

Brother Blume, Jesus' resurrected body had holes in it, and a gaping spear wound in His side. Jesus was unrecognizable, due to what that body endured.
Jesus and the many who arose where the physical proof of the resurrection, and witness that those who would wait to hear the last trumpet would also awake not to be shown as physical proof, but to go on to be with the Lord forever.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[mental]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Blume, yet your not taking into consideration where pneumatikos is being used to describe items that are also invisible themselves.
Romans 1:11, Romans 7:14, Romans 15:27, Eph 1:3, Col 1:9, 1st Peter 2:5, 1st Corinthians 2:13, 1Cor 9:11. In the context of the chapter of 1st Corinthians 15, the apostle is discussing the resurrection of the dead. One thing that is interesting is that you acknowledge that pneumatikos is an adjective which modifies a noun. Now, lets apply that to Paul's writings. He is describing the materials of different types of flesh. Then he comes down to the natural body, and the spiritual body, and what they are made from. What I think you are saying is, that all of a sudden he leaves the idea of what the body is made up of, and turns around and starts explaining what they are powered by? Brother Blume, is that what you are seeing?

This is the one thing that gives me pause. I understand ikos and inos suffixes are related to the adjective type, but it is still an adjective describing a body. How would a Greek writer describe a spiritual body, opposed to a physical body, if he had to? They would have to use these same adjectives. Thus the adjectives would probably have a dual meaning much like they do in English.

On the other hand, Bro Blume makes a good point that he is backing up his position with good scholarship, and I understand the argument he is making. I don’t think you can simply accept scholar’s views uncritically, but when you have the weight of scholarship he is referencing, it is hard to ignore. It at least needs to be seriously considered. Sure scholars have biases, but who doesn’t. The good ones will explain other views and argue for their own.

Do you have any scholars that would take a spiritual resurrection view? I would be interested to read one. What other scripture would there be to support a spiritual resurrection?

[smurfette]

Whew! Way too much for my pea brain to handle! I'm just hoping that if the glorified body is in a physical form...mine will be 15 pounds lighter! HA!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Blume, changed before I did? No doubt, definitely no doubt about that! I hope to sweet Jesus, that I never get that much change going in my walk with Christ.

Here we go again with insults.

whew.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mental

This is the one thing that gives me pause. I understand ikos and inos suffixes are related to the adjective type, but it is still an adjective describing a body. How would a Greek writer describe a spiritual body, opposed to a physical body, if he had to? They would have to use these same adjectives. Thus the adjectives would probably have a dual meaning much like they do in English.

On the other hand, Bro Blume makes a good point that he is backing up his position with good scholarship, and I understand the argument he is making. I don’t think you can simply accept scholar’s views uncritically, but when you have the weight of scholarship he is referencing, it is hard to ignore. It at least needs to be seriously considered. Sure scholars have biases, but who doesn’t. The good ones will explain other views and argue for their own.

Do you have any scholars that would take a spiritual resurrection view? I would be interested to read one. What other scripture would there be to support a spiritual resurrection?

Thanks for your words, bro.

[mfblume]

Brother Blume the main issue is that you just don't know if they are agreeing with the original writers intent for the word pneumatikos. They believe that Paul is speaking of the natural body being motivated by animal impulses and drives, you in your posts agree with that thought, and also that the spiritual body is being motivated by the spirit, driven, animated. Those are your thoughts linked with your scholars. You touch nothing on what Paul is trying to say, concerning what is the type of that body.

Incorrect. I made more than one study on the context of the overall chapter on my website years ago. And posted those findings on forums that you have read.

If you look at a Wigram and Green, New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon, page 726, for the word pneumatikos, I'll quote, "of the Spirit" first description of the word pneumatikos. That means Brother Blume, that pneumatikos can be used to describe the condition of a person, or a thing, and if those things are of the spirit. Not only in origin, but creation. To offer up spiritual sacrifices are not physically seen. Are your spiritual sacrifices physical?

You did not answer a certain question I asked, so I ask it again in order to prove a point that your question is moot. There is a spiritual man and natural man as well as natural thoughts and spiritual thoughts. Are natural thoughts unseen? No. But it seems you claim spiritual always means unseen in contrast to the seen and the physical. But natural thoughts are no more physical than spiritual thoughts. So your point in proving spiritual things are always unseen because spiritual gifts are unseen is moot and flawed. There are natural gifts that people have, like a propensity at artwork. Are the gifts and abilities seen? No. An ability is never seen whether it is natural or spiritual. Only the results of those abilities as gifts of the Spirit result in physical miracles.

No, because they disagree with the context of what Paul is trying to convey to his first century readers. Paul doesn't go from answering the question in 1st Cor 15:35, with what body do they come? To How Will That Body Be Influenced, Motivated, and Driven?

Oh okay. You are not biased, but I am. Right. You do not reject what scholars say if they disagree with you, but I do. okay. Got it, even though you constantly disagree with every scholar who claims the points I made are correct.

Are you kidding me? Brother if Pre-Tribulation Dispensational Futurism was able to be proven in the Bible, book, chapter, and verse, I would be on it.

Pretrib, disp, futurism is not required to believe in phsyical resurrection. So you avoided my question.

Brother Blume, after all I have experienced in dealing with Partial Preterists is that they are only on a learning curve. Eventually they place all the pieces together and come into Fulfilled Eschatology.

After all I experienced, that is not true.

No doubt, but you are not just dealing with just one Greek word. You are dealing with and entire chapter, and its context, which because of your futurist leanings you take away from what the writer is trying to convey.

I disagree. But if we want to talk about what manners of minds each of us have and how open or closed we are to truth, we will never deal with the actual issues.

Brother Blume, you not wanting to be right one way or another?

I started my post out with this:

Originally Posted by mfblume

I also believe the Lord guides us in our personal study without the Greek scholars. I have no personal preference on the issue. So that is not a factor. The issue is what does the bible say in my honest assessment?

So, no.

Brother Blume, you have said more than once that there must be a physical resurrection. You fought against a spiritual resurrection for a long time, it goes part and parcel with your disdain for Fulfilled Eschatology. Which I believe is more a personal issue than a theological issue. Yet, I will leave it at that.

When you get a degree in psychology, maybe you can psycho analyze people and have respect of others in doing so. But in the meantime let's stick to the objective issues of the bible. Only God knows the intents of our hearts. Willing to stick with scripture? Or will you continue to be personal?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Bro Benincasa

Brother Blume we offer up pneumatikos sacrifices and we are a priesthood. Yet, those sacrifices are not visible as the sacrifices of the second temple.

And there are psuchikos thoughts that are unseen thoughts as well, but not spiritual. So we have spiritual things that are both physical and non-physical as well as natural things that are physical and non-physical. You seem to think anything natural has to be seen and anything spiritual is unseen. When I give an example of physical things that the bible said were spiritual, you do not directly respond but said that spiritual gifts are not seen. How is that an answer? The fact is you are uinable to directly answer my questions. When I do the same thing to you and ask whether carnal thoughts are unseen, you do not respond. Please tell us why is it that there are spiritual things that are physical (meat and drink in 1 Cor 10) and other spiritual things that are not (as in gifts), and why are there natural things that are physical (bodies) and natural things that are not (gifts and thoughts)? Can't answer, can you?

The apostle also tells the Corinthians if they knew that they were the temple of God, were they a physical temple?

See? Same moot point. It is moot because you ONLY use elements we both know are not physical, bvut think they somehow prove the spiritual body is not physical as well. Meanwhile I showed you things that were spiritual and very physical, and natural things that are very non-physical. You won't answer me on those.

What about spiritual understanding? All this means is that they are "of the Spirit." Putting on immortality isn't putting on some sort of super flesh, it was an issue of having the fullness of eternal life.

Putting on immortality is saying something that was mortal and was changed so as to be immortal. That which is mortal PUTS ON immortality. You do not agree. You think the idea is actually something that is mortal is left and rots to nothingness, and something totally distinct and apart from that something is immortal. But the context disaloows for that.

1Co 15:53 KJV For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

What is the "THIS"? It is one thing that is mortal and changes to no longer be mortal and instead becomes immortal. that has no place in your teaching. Nothing in your teaching is mortal and then changes to no longer be mortal but instead immortal. There is no mortal THiS that puts on IMMORTALITY in your didea like the scritpurts demands there is.

The verse shouls instead read, "This immortal does not put on immortality, but is discarded, and something else replaces it altogether that is immortal." There is not PUTTING ON OF IMMORTALITY without one common element that is mortal being made immortal.

Context disallows for your thoughts. The same thing is found here:

1Co 15:43-44 KJV It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: (44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

The same IT that is sown is the IT that is raised, not something else being raised. The reason the body that is sown is not what is raised, yet the same IT that is sown is raised, is because it is one and the same body that changes to have different traits about it.

This doesn't take away from my argument, but helps it. Yes, if Paul had all these things what did he lack? Jesus said His kingdom was not of the physical world, or else His servants would of fought physically so He wouldn't of been handed over to the Jews. Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not from the physical. Therefore how can after 2,000 years and counting with no end in sight, can a physical Kingdom be part of Jesus' plan?

The physical kingdom is not and never will be part of his plan. Hence, strawman.

Paul wasn't waiting to get a physical change,

Yes he was.

The only thing mortal about him after his salvation was his body. And that which was mortal shall put on immortality. That which was mortal shall not be discarded forever to never change into anything else, as you demand. That thing which is mortal -- the body -- shall be made immortal. The moral body puts on immortalioty. There is no "putting on" of something that is mortal in your teaching. Thus Paul's words disallow for your teaching.

but a change that would give him immortality the full payment of eternal life.

The full payment for eternal life was the cross. Nothing has to be paid after the cross paid it all. It takes away from the cross to propose your thoughts. The fact is that there is the redemption of the BODY that was yet to come according to Romans 8. But you refuse to show your beliefs on that since you think it will flip me out. lol

Do not ovecomplicate it. The body is the body. Period. Paul awaited the physical being made immortal. The price was already paid by the cross, but the effect of that payment for that particular aspect of Paul -- immortalized body -- was to be realized in the future.

After Paul states that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, he goes on to say that they should not all sleep? Was he taking about taking sleep in rest?

THE BODY. Souls do not sleep, not now nor before AD70 because absence from the body before AD70 meant presence with the Lord. THE BODY sleeps. And that refers to physical death. And although everyone shall change in body, whether they died or are not dead when the Lord comes, not everyone will die.

No, he was talking about those who waited in the grave in sleep.

Soul sleep is false doctrine. Paul proved that when he said that before AD70 his death would mean absence from the body -- any body including your version of the spirtitual body -- and presence with the Lord. He did not stipulate absence from the phsyical body alone as though his death gives him a spiritual body with which he rises should he die before AD70.

Sorry that isn't Paul talking about himself, but that another subject.

I already said "that would be his thinking in his rhetoric as a person who served in oldness of the letter" implying it was not actually Paul whom Paul described.

Originally Posted by Bro Benincasa

By description, like there once was a super intelligent Newfie.

Of course it is description. but that does not answer my question. It is description of what drives the body according to my belief, and it is description of what the body is composed of in your concept. So the question is what exactly is the detail intended in saying the term "spiritual" is a description?

Interesting how you skipped 1st Corinthians 15:39 in your above explanation.

1Co 15:39 KJV All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

You actually think composite material is the issue in verse 39? Brother! The actual difference is not whether flesh is made of different building blocks in fish or birds. The difference is how the bodies are arranged as per their limbs and heads, etc.. Flesh in birds is of the same earthly elements that flesh in fish are made from. And Paul would not know anyting about the periodic table of elements to indicate any differences there. He simply said that the body of a fish is ARRANGED differently with its limbs and head and eyes in totally diverse formats between one creature and the next. He is not talking about what the material that flesh is made of.

[mfblume]

Then you need to read it again.

I did, and I think you missed the facts Paul presented.

So, do you no longer believe in a physical resurrection, but believe that the natural body is the un-regenerated man, and the spiritual body is the regenerated born again believer? I know some Preterists who believe it that way although I disagree with that line of thought.

WHAT??? Who said I do not believe in a physical resurrection? There is a physical resurrection of our bodies to come. I do not believe the spiritual body is the regenerated born again believer? Where did I say anything that made you think otherwise? Why do you think I wrote all i wrote about physical bodies rising?

Well, it does speak for the context for the chapter, and if you read the whole chapter in context you can see how it is talking about going from one condition to the next, one higher than the other. From mortal to immortal, from base to exhalation, from the physical to the spiritual, invisible unseen.

You are completely wrong. It is NOT the context of the chapter. The only instance in which Paul used material composition in the entire chapter (!!) was in speaking of Adam's body being of the earth, but he does not even contrast that with material of Jesus' body. When Paul said Adam was of the earth earthy, it contrasted Jesus who is LORD FROM HEAVEN, unless you believe in DIVINE FLESH teaching. Earth is contrasted from HEAVEN. Did God make Jesus' body out of heavenly material that was not physical?

As I said, that verse says nothing about material composition of Jesus' body. So that is not the contrast. The contrast is Adam being EARTHY in more than his flesh. Adam was from earth and Jesus' new body in his resurrection was from heaven. That body that rose from the grave was the body from heaven, as 2 Cor 5 says we shall have. This shows that Christ's risen body is the same sort of body Paul noted in 2 Cor 5 as a body which is from heaven.

Not about composition?

No!

Maybe you should try another translation
1Co 15:47-49 The first man is out of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord out of heaven; as is the earthy, such are also the earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are also the heavenly; and, according as we did bear the image of the earthy, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly.
Brother Blume, that pretty much explains composition very nicely.

So what is the specific composition for Jesus in that same verse?

You read nothing I said. You missed my whole point. It is contrasting JESUS' BODY FROM THE TOMB, which was very physical, thereby refuting your overall point.

Brother Blume, you always have a way of making the simple complex.
Paul is not concentrating on Lordship here, but the issue is about the spirit realm, opposed to the material realm. One mortal, the other a quickening Spirit, which creates immortality, and eternal life. The new Adam of the new creation. Adam originated from dirt, and Jesus originated from heaven. Those who had the image of the natural earth creation, would take on the image of heaven's creation. It is that simple.

Actually my view is the less complex one. Adam from the ground and Jesus' body that resurrected was from heaven. So shall our bodies be as Christ's was from the tomb. But you disagree. You think Christ abandoned that body from the tomb after Acts 1:11, although the bible does not say so.

Brother Blume, Jesus' resurrected body had holes in it, and a gaping spear wound in His side. Jesus was unrecognizable, due to what that body endured.

Worn out response. Let me repeat what I told you every time you said this.... Jesus was whipped to hamburger meat on the cross. He was marred in his visage more than any man, and men have been marred quite badly. And YOU THINK IT ONLY MEANT HIS HANDS AND FEET AND SIDE HAD HOLES????

To say that the fact that the wounds with which He died were still visible in his body is to imply that risen body is NOT the spiritual body that we shall get. You use that in attempts to make it sound like everyone who is saved and has a mangled member of their body will rise with a mangled member of their body according to my belief. But you fail to realize that thinking the holes in his feet, hands and side were the few of many more wounds all over his frame. And that for the disciples to only see nail and spear wounds and none other is for the Lord to have CHOSEN TO RETAIN THOSE PARTICULAR WOUNDS, while not bearing any other wounds that caused him to be marred more than any man.

The only way you can disagree is to say he was marred more than any man since he had holes in hands, feet and his side. Wow! That REALLY is being marred more than any man, isn't it?! (Not).

HE CHOSE TO RETAIN THE NAIL WOUNDS AND SPEAR WOUND. But where are the thorn wounds in his brow? What about the wounds from the beard ripped from his face? One would think that if you were correct, and Christ had a risen body that remained MANGLED from the cross in all manners in which he was mangled by the ordeal, they would have gasped at the torn flesh of his cheeks from which his beard was plucked, and the gaping holes in his forehead from where the thorns punctured his brow. He would have had open wounds all over his face and neck. But the obvious point is that He resurrected and the wounds he chose to retain in order to witness of his resurrection to the disciples were ONLY the wounds in hands, feet and side. He CHOSE to retain them, and not the others.

You have arguments for his wounds as though you reach so far to grasp at straws by saying that body with which he came from the tomb is not the kind of body with which we shall arise with in the resurrection. You have to create a moment that is not written in the bible when Jesus discarded the physical body with which he resurrected AND ASCENDED. You have to re-phrase "THIS CORRUPTIBLE SHALL PUT ON INCORRUPTION" into something where no "this" puts on anything. For a "this" to put on one thing after having another trait means that the "this" changes in nature, just as a body is no longer mortal but the same body is rendered and altered immortal. All these manners of speaking in Paul's words here completely disallow for your view.