The Body Incorruptible

RDKirk said:

Good point. At the molecular level, we are already not occupying the same physical body we were born into.

Click to expand...

For the most part; there are some cells that do not die and get replaced, and thus the molecule chain for some things is largely or entirely the same, for example, DNA in brain cells, a specific protein in the lens of the eye, and the molecular structure of tooth enamel, once formed, either in the womb or in childhood in the case of permanent teeth, are stable throughout the lifetime and can also be used to carbon date human remains.

This was partially confirmed through testing of carbon 14, a radioisotope the amount of which in the atmosphere doubled for a time due to nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s, and it was discovered that the amount of carbon 14 present in DNA and eye lens tissue, the amount of carbon 14 varied consistently based on the year the person was born, indicating that these molecules had remained with the body.

However, the majority of our tissues does get replaced; indeed, we can’t simply say based on the age of the cell whether or not the molecules are of the same, with a few exceptions, such as DNA, and also collagen, where indeed, the molecules are stable, of necessity.

I would also state that none of this changes or invalidates your argument in the OP, in my opinion at least, since I would argue that at the molecular and atomic level, since we are mostly unstable on the quantum level, our identity and uniqueness comes from the configuration of elemental particles rather than the identity of the particles (also I would stress that these particles are indistinguishable from one another, in that one cannot tell one proton from another; indeed by the time we reach the atom, we are already in the realm of things so small that we begin to encounter the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, indeed, even at the molecular level we approach that threshold, since a hydrogen atom, which is extremely common in the body, can be a single proton (normally with an orbiting electron) or a group of two or more protons, and thus hydrogen is definitely small enough to exhibit quantum behavior.

And once the Heisenberg uncertainty principle sets in, since we cannot even know with certainty the exact position and momentum of a particle (the more we know about one of these properties, the less we know about the other) but rather have to result to probabilities and statistical analysis to determine what is probable vs. improbable, but we have left the clean world of determinism behind and entered into an area of physics many people find deeply frustrating, and which at the start is counter-intuitive, and what is more, many heretics and cult leaders attempt to deceive people by making ludicrous claims about quantum mechanics by attempting to use certain arguments from it to reinforce such occult ideas as “the law of attraction” and other quantum woo.

It is my belief that quantum mechanics has only one thing to say that is of great theological relevance, and also this point I would further argue is not specific to quantum mechanics but applies to all aspects of science, and that is that God loves us very much, because in creating a universe so delicate and fascinating, that the study of it itself becomes a thrilling adventure, he has demonstrated a love that applies to every part of our humanity, including the human mind. For God could have chosen to create a boring universe.

The real tragedy is that many scientists are atheists and thus are missing out on the appreciation of this beauty, and a few scientists, mostly those who have ceased to conduct active research but instead are involved in science education, engage in psuedo-science by attempting to make arguments against religion on the basis of scientific observations in a manner which is not generally applicable, and in so doing they promote a false dichotomy between science and religion, gloss over the important contributions made by Christians and people of other faiths to science, even in the present, since some important scientists in various disciplines are in fact Christian, and are also making what amounts to a philosophical argument with pretensions of scientific authority, which is exactly the same behavior that many people rightly criticize the quantum mystics like Deepak Chopra for engaging in.

Hentenza said:

A long time ago one of my Christian friends, who BTW was a Catholic, taught me that there is an infinite difference between a finite being and an infinite being. I like to keep that in mind when I’m trying to explained God’s ways with my puny, tiny mind.

Click to expand...

That’s true; from an Orthodox perspective its also exciting, given our theological model of salvation via theosis, since we believe this means God will never cease to cooperate with us so that we might become closer to His absolute perfection, from which we are infinitely removed in the presence, but each time through the grace of the Holy Spirit we are persuaded to align ourselves more with his love, there is rejoicing in heaven, for that is repentance, which is a cause for divine joy. Indeed from the words of Christ it seems that God is not concerned with static perfection but rather in helping the imperfect to change their mind (metanoia, that is to say, to repent) and to become more like Him, that we might be perfect even as our Father in Heaven is perfect (likewise, it is equally thrilling that God the Father, who is not only uncreated and infinite but also unoriginate, having begotten God the Son and Word, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, before all ages, and likewise the Holy Spirit proceeding from him eternally, thus, three uncreated divine coeternal persons who are coequal and united in perfect love, sharing the unoriginate essence of the Father, is willing to make us His sons according to adoption, and to this end in the person of the Son, to quote St. Athanasius, God became man so that man could become god (by which, to be clear, St. Athanasius was not speaking of apotheosis or us joining the Holy Trinity, for we are finite creatures, and God is infinite and uncreated, but rather, that we might become sons of God by adoption and inherit eternal life.

RDKirk said:

I don't know. Another speculation is that God makes sure across the generations that the atoms of believers never cross.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Possible. I’ve thought it as if God knows every hair in everyone’s head then He is powerful enough to keep up with everyone’s atoms.

Click to expand...

I'm reminded of St. Justin's On The Resurrection, where he addresses several objections to resurrection.

Well, they say, if then the flesh rise, it must rise the same as it falls; so that if it die with one eye, it must rise one-eyed; if lame, lame; if defective in any part of the body, in this part the man must rise deficient. How truly blinded are they in the eyes of their hearts! For they have not seen on the earth blind men seeing again, and the lame walking by His word. All things which the Saviour did, He did in the first place in order that what was spoken concerning Him in the prophets might be fulfilled, that the blind should receive sight, and the deaf hear, and so on; but also to induce the belief that in the resurrection the flesh shall rise entire. For if on earth He healed the sicknesses of the flesh, and made the body whole, much more will He do this in the resurrection, so that the flesh shall rise perfect and entire. In this manner, then, shall those dreaded difficulties of theirs be healed. (St. Justin Martyr, On the Resurrection, 4)

Click to expand...

While Justin refers explicitly to those who say the resurrection is nonsense since if the body rises then a person with only one eye would rise with one eye, or someone who lost a limb would rise without that limb--Justin argues instead that there is a full restoration of the body. The body is raised in perfection.

While this doesn't relate directly to the matter of atoms in the ground, I think we can apply Justin's thinking here all the same. Just because when the body dies and decays, with atoms becoming food of worms and beetles, or feeding grass and trees, etc--none of that actually matters when it comes to the resurrection.

In our modern knowledge of science we know that even over the course of our lives the atoms which made up our bodies at our birth have been completely replaced within a manner of years--so that even the body while alive now recycles atoms and yet the body still remains the body. Why should it, therefore, be any difficulty for the Creator of time and space to raise the body up even though the constituent matter had long been recycled throughout the earth? The same God who gave sight to the blind, made the lame to walk, and commanded the dead to wake up is the God who will cause our own bodies to rise.

Even though our bodies have become dust, spread across the face of the planet--even still these bodies shall rise according to the will of the God who raised up Jesus from the dead.

It's simply no difficulty for the Maker of Heaven and Earth.

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

You are right that Jesus rose from the dead bodily. His body did not experience decay. When He appeared to people after His resurrection, He was the same age as He was when He was crucified, He had nail holes in His hands and feet, a spear hole in his side, and presumably thorn holes around His head and bruises on His back. Since we will follow His example, can we expect that our resurrected body will be in the same shape it was when we passed?

But wait. His body did not see decay. But ours do (I have seen many examples on crime shows on TV). Is the body you get in the resurrection in the same shape as it was when you died, or is it in the same shape it was when you were resurrected? For Jesus, both of these were pretty much the same. What Scriptures do we use to determine which one applies to us?

And what Scriptures support the idea that our resurrection bodies are reconstituted from various molecules into a version of our physical bodies that may never have existed in real life? I can guess as to why this is postulated. Is it because nobody wants to live for eternity in a body that dies of old age and can barely function or in a baby's body that can barely crawl? But creating doctrine for this out of whole cloth with no Biblical support and which if not accepted makes void all of Christianity goes a bit far.

Another thing is clear about Christ's resurrection. Nobody saw Him in all His glory (the glory which He had with the Father before He came to earth and the glory which was restored to Him after His ascension). Otherwise they would have died. Nobody can look on Him and live. But that restriction will be lifted after our resurrection. We do not know exactly what bodies we will have, but we know that we will be like Him and see Him as He is. This sure hope is not built on questionable doctrines.

2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 Jn 3:2–3).​

Click to expand...

Early Pagan critics of Christianity often mocked both Jews and Christians for the belief in the resurrection of the body. This is why St. Paul was mocked when he preached the Gospel at the Areopagus in Athens. And it's also the reason why a century later St. Justin wrote his treatise On the Resurrection, which I quoted a small portion from already.

I would encourage you to take a look at St. Justin's apologetical arguments in defense of Christian teaching:

On the Resurrection by St. Justin Martyr

The Liturgist said:

In what respect do you argue that post-Resurrection life is not real life?

It’s the use of terminology like that which is eschatologically … worrisome.

Click to expand...

In no respect do I argue that post-resurrection life is not real. Consider these verses:

• When our earthly house is destroyed we get an eternal house made by God (2 Cor 5:1). Does this point to a remodeled house or to a new and different house?
• We desire "to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven" which will not leave us naked (2 Cor 5:1). Does this point to taking off one pair of clothes and putting on another, or does it point to taking off and putting on the same pair of clothes?
• Our groanings over our current clothes is not reflective of a desire to have no clothes at all, but a desire to have better clothes (2 Cor 5:4). Are the better clothes that we await the same as the ones we expect to be replaced?
• From inside our hearts, God's Spirit convinces us that as long as we are in our current bodies we are absent from the Lord and that when we exit these bodies we will be present with Him (2 Cor 5:5-8). Does this point to being present with the Lord in our current bodies?

Digging in and drawing battle lines over the exact contitution of our resurrection bodies is futile because God has not revealed the exact details to us (1 John 3:2). And demanding Scriptural evidence to back up theories to the contrary should not be construed to deny that we do not have real life post-resurrection.

ViaCrucis said:

Early Pagan critics of Christianity often mocked both Jews and Christians for the belief in the resurrection of the body. This is why St. Paul was mocked when he preached the Gospel at the Areopagus in Athens. And it's also the reason why a century later St. Justin wrote his treatise On the Resurrection, which I quoted a small portion from already.

I would encourage you to take a look at St. Justin's apologetical arguments in defense of Christian teaching:

On the Resurrection by St. Justin Martyr

Click to expand...

In your reading of His arguments did you find any anwers to my questions?

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

Since we will follow His example, can we expect that our resurrected body will be in the same shape it was when we passed?

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

Is the body you get in the resurrection in the same shape as it was when you died, or is it in the same shape it was when you were resurrected? For Jesus, both of these were pretty much the same. What Scriptures do we use to determine which one applies to us?

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

And what Scriptures support the idea that our resurrection bodies are reconstituted from various molecules into a version of our physical bodies that may never have existed in real life?

Click to expand...

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

In no respect do I argue that post-resurrection life is not real

Click to expand...

Well that’s good; my concern was prompted by your use of the specific phrase “what Scriptures support the idea that our resurrection bodies are reconstituted from various molecules into a version of our physical bodies that may never have existed in real life?” in this post: The Body Incorruptible

Which I did find to be confusing, but since you are not saying what I was afraid you were saying, that at least is good. Although I must confess, I’m not entirely sure what your point was, in that case.

ViaCrucis said:

In our modern knowledge of science we know that even over the course of our lives the atoms which made up our bodies at our birth have been completely replaced within a manner of years

Click to expand...

Mostly replaced - certain bits, particularly much of the DNA in neurons in the brain (which can be repaired but the bulk of it remains the same), and certain non-living tissue such as the eyes, collagen structures and dental enamel, are stable at the molecular level, and other cells can last quite a long time with molecular, and therefore atomic, stability (since a molecule shedding an atom would be … unpleasant; it’s bad enough when you have an element like flourine enter the body which is highly electronegative and causes severe damage by ripping ions of of other atoms, for which reason flourine is not only corrosive, explosive and able to catch just about anything, including iron, on fire (only helium and neon do not interact with it; additionally it can be stored, I hesitate to use the word safely, but in a stable manner, in, for example, nickel flouride containers, but is also extremely toxic, neurotoxic and carcinogenic; fluorine attacks the bones ass well as the nervous system. Although turned into flouride, it can be used to protect the teeth. But flourine is often the atom that differentiates a dangerous molecule from a safe one (for example, SARIN). Oh also, chlorine triflouride can set concrete on fire (but is nonetheless of some use in semiconductor manufacturing).

I believe I mentioned carbon dating via the presence or lack thereof of carbon-14 isotope

NewLifeInChristJesus said:

In your reading of His arguments did you find any anwers to my questions?

Click to expand...

Go ahead and read it for yourself. But the answer is yes. That's why I suggested you read it.

ViaCrucis said:

Go ahead and read it for yourself. But the answer is yes. That's why I suggested you read it.

Click to expand...

I simply asked the questions to point out some of the difficulties that people run into when they go beyond what God has revealed concerning the constitution of our resurrection bodies. And this is meant to cause those people to prayerfully think through what they believe and hopefully lead them to a better understanding. So, I'm glad you have found the answers.

The Liturgist said:

Well that’s good; my concern was prompted by your use of the specific phrase “what Scriptures support the idea that our resurrection bodies are reconstituted from various molecules into a version of our physical bodies that may never have existed in real life?” in this post: The Body Incorruptible

Which I did find to be confusing, but since you are not saying what I was afraid you were saying, that at least is good. Although I must confess, I’m not entirely sure what your point was, in that case.

Click to expand...

My point for that particular sentence was to ask for Scriptures that support the idea that our bodies will be reconstituted into the best version our our physical bodies. And for babies who die this best version presumably would not have occurred. But for an elderly person, it may have actually occurred. But if the elderly person had some physical ailment from childhood, that best version may not have occurred. So, basically, I wasn't saying the idea is wrong. I was just asking for Scriptural support for the idea.

The OP postulated that our bodies could be reconstituted that way. But it also used Jesus' resurrection as our model. But his body was in the same shape as it was when He was crucified. The most telling feature was that He still had nail holes in His hands and a spear hole in His side, and we know this because He invited Thomas to put his finger in the holes in His hand and his hand into the hole in His side.

But what the Scriptures don't tell us is whether He was still bleeding (or oozing) or whether there was any blood left in His body at all. And my point above was that His body was not changed into a different/repaired version of itself than what He died with. So I was asking for the Scriptures that explain that our bodies might be reconstituted into a differnt form than what we died with whereas Jesus's body (our only example) was not.

RDKirk said:

I would say that Jesus was crucified at the peak of His genetic entelechy (in His early 30s) and His wounds, being signs of His victory over death (medals, as it were), would be preserved as badges of honor. I believe He exists in exactly the same form, a material being bearing the signs of those wounds, in Heaven to this day and forevermore.

So if the resurrection were merely resuscitation of a corpse, we would expect coagulated blood, infection, tissue necrosis, and severe trauma impairment.

But the Gospel accounts present something different: wounds remain visible, no mention of active bleeding, no sign of decay, no functional impairment, and ability to eat.

This suggests the writers are not describing a revived mortal organism, but a transformed body continuous with, yet not identical to, its prior biological condition.

Click to expand...

Those are all good points. But I don't think they answer my call for Scriptures that support what has been postulated for us. And it doesn't answer the obvious observation that the disciples did not see Him in all His glory as we will when we see Him as He is.