Christ turns into a spirit

[ebia]

No. But the point is not what I may or may not have read. The point I have made is that I have not known any critical scholar to claim that the resurrection can only be physical.

Not having read sufficiently widely would be a possible explanation for that, wouldn't it? So the point is related to what you have or have not read. You claim you understand Tom Wright's possition and I don't, but you have not read his major work on the topic in question. Which of his books have you read?

How? Only if one needs empirical evidence of some sort - like a body.

That is simply untrue. A physical event can - often does - something very different than a non-physical event described in metaphoric terms. If you are only seeing it in terms of proof you're missing 90% of the point.

A physical resurrection is a substantive defeat of death and a sure sign of God putting the physical creation right. A non-physical event is what Tom Wright calls "not a defeat of death but just a redefinition of it" (my paraphrase). It means something completely different - almost diametrically opposed.

I suggest that the present debate is very much about the 'need' for concrete evidence.

Then you've misunderstood the debate - at least from the point of view of the serious scholars arguing for a physical resurrection.

There is nothing within the texts that supports the view of a physical resurrection.

[/font]
There is - you've just disregarded it. You've chosen to disregard Luke (and presumably John), you've chosen to ignore what the words translated resurrection meant in the 1st century, you've chosen to ignore that a missing body is inherently a physical event... Every time the texts imply physicality you choose to read them as metaphor or later concretization; on that basis how, exactly, could the texts tell you we are talking about something physical? The narratives describe physical things happening, the non-narratives use words that mean physical (as opposed to non-physical) things - how could they possibly be less ambiguous?

The early Christians did not 'need' a physical Jesus. I have outlined my arguments in support of this aspect earlier.

You haven't really made an argument at all, so far as I can remember.

Why? How can you arrive at the stark either/or position?

Because a claim of a physical event means something very different to a claim of a non-physical event. Particularly when the physical event is unique and unexpected in the way that resurrection was.

Could you also level the same charge at Paul - and John?

No. Because they aren't saying remotely anything like what you are saying - that's exactly the point. Paul and John are talking about a physical event that is the beginning of God putting right his (physical) creation - John 20, Romans 8, 1 Cor 15....

But that is not the point other than to attempt to silence any overt talk about the Spirit.

You should know better than ascribing motives to those you disagree with. There is no dichotomy - the Christian faith is grounded in both historical events - particularly in Jesus of Nazareth and the work of the Spirit.

The whole debate against anything suggesting that the Spirit of God might reside within (where else would it reside?) is the epistemological challenge that it proposes. The Church for two millennia has focused on the person of Jesus for this very purpose. However this is the 21st century and the church no longer has that control.

"Spiritualising" Christianity is nothing new - its been going on since at least the second century. Trying to claim it as some wonderful breaking free in new ideas is twentieth century myth. Likewise trying to claim its getting back to the first century.

That is worn out argument and no longer holds water. No one is suggesting anything I, or your, might happen to dream up is 'truth'.

That's not what my pretend quote means.

The only thing you are doing is appealing to tradition.

I'm appealing (via the work of Wright etc) that this is what the writes of the New Testament - ie the earliest church - understood to have happened and the meaning they gave it.

But what I have pointed out is that 'tradition' to which you claim allegiance was not the tradition of the early Christians.

You've claimed that over and over, but you've offered no evidence to support that claim nor engaged with the work and arguments that refute it.

You've misread at least one serious writter on the subject, I put it to you again you are also misreading Paul, Luke, Mark, John,...

The early Christians believe in the Spirit of God. My argument is that we should perhaps seriously consider doing the same.

We do.

 

[wayseer]

Not having read sufficiently widely would be a possible explanation for that, wouldn't it?

That's too easy for any argument. If you have read anything different please provide the quote.

You claim you understand Tom Wright's possition and I don't, but you have not read his major work on the topic in question.

I have not made that claim at all. What I have done is provide a quote from Wright. As yet you have not provided any quote from anyone that might support a purely physical resurrection.

If you are only seeing it in terms of proof you're missing 90% of the point.

I am not the one arguing for a physical resurrection.

A physical resurrection is a substantive defeat of death and a sure sign of God putting the physical creation right. A non-physical event is what Tom Wright calls "not a defeat of death but just a redefinition of it" (my paraphrase). It means something completely different - almost diametrically opposed.

I would like to read the full context of your paraphrase.

Then you've misunderstood the debate - at least from the point of view of the serious scholars arguing for a physical resurrection.

And who are these serious scholars who argue for purely physical resurrection?

Every time the texts imply physicality you choose to read them as metaphor or later concretization

That is my position. I'm yet to read anything that suggests that the resurrection must be a physically resurrected body.

You haven't really made an argument at all, so far as I can remember.

I have but you choose to ignore it.

Because a claim of a physical event means something very different to a claim of a non-physical event. Particularly when the physical event is unique and unexpected in the way that resurrection was.

The words 'unique' and 'unexpected' are significant. How does one explain something that has not happened before? What language does one use to convey the necessary meaning given the restriction on language.

That the texts are nuanced and ambiguous is to be expected.

No. Because they aren't saying remotely anything like what you are saying - that's exactly the point. Paul and John are talking about a physical event that is the beginning of God putting right his (physical) creation - John 20, Romans 8, 1 Cor 15....

Are you seriously suggesting that John is empirically and documentary evidence? Paul certainly spoke in dualistic terms.

You should know better than ascribing motives to those you disagree with. There is no dichotomy - the Christian faith is grounded in both historical events - particularly in Jesus of Nazareth and the work of the Spirit.

Then I fail to understand the 'need' to produce a physical body.

"Spiritualising" Christianity is nothing new - its been going on since at least the second century. Trying to claim it as some wonderful breaking free in new ideas is twentieth century myth. Likewise trying to claim its getting back to the first century.

I am not 'spiritualizing'. What I am arguing is that there is a need to embrace the idea that God's Spirit does dwell within. It is that indwelling that perhaps needs better recognized.

I'm appealing (via the work of Wright etc) that this is what the writes of the New Testament - ie the earliest church - understood to have happened and the meaning they gave it.

But you have not produced anything to support the position that the resurrection was solely a physical event.

You've claimed that over and over, but you've offered no evidence to support that claim nor engaged with the work and arguments that refute it.

As I said earlier, I have documented my argument.

You've misread at least one serious writter on the subject, I put it to you again you are also misreading Paul, Luke, Mark, John,...

I am not misrepresenting anyone. That is an unfair charged. You might not agree with my argument but I don't go around 'misrepresenting' anyone to support my argument.

 

[ebia]

That's too easy for any argument. If you have read anything different please provide the quote.

When you tell me what sort of quote you need I will.

I have not made that claim at all. What I have done is provide a quote from Wright.

You provided a quote and your interpretation, and you claimed - or at least strongly suggested -that I must be misinterpreting him.

As yet you have not provided any quote from anyone that might support a purely physical resurrection.

I've cited a whole book that is widely regarded as the best, most exhaustive, historical examination of the case for a physical resurrection. I'm not sure what you adding the word "purely" in there is supposed to imply because I have no idea what a "purely physical resurrection" could possibly be. It's like saying "he's alive, but only physically" - its meaningless.

I am not the one arguing for a physical resurrection.

And? You're the one who insists that the only relevance of a physical resurrection is to provide empirical proof when that's not the importance we are placing on it.

I would like to read the full context of your paraphrase.

That's a fair request but it would take me some serious effort to track it down.

And who are these serious scholars who argue for [...] physical resurrection?

I'll let you decide who counts as a scholar from:
Tom Wright, John Dickson, John Polkinghorne, Harry Goodhew, Rowan Williams, Benedict XVI, John Pritchard, Peter Corney, Richard Bauckham,CS Lewis, Jerome Murphy O'Connor, M.J. Harris, P.S. Johnston, John Goldingay, [Peter Adam I'm reasonably sure about], Kevin Madigan, Jon Levenson (from my head and asome checks on stuff I have on my iphone - I keep adding to the list when I get home if its worth the effort ).

That is my position. I'm yet to read anything that suggests that the resurrection must be a physically resurrected body.

If you're willing to take every possible word metaphorically, how could an author make anything clear?

The words 'unique' and 'unexpected' are significant. How does one explain something that has not happened before? What language does one use to convey the necessary meaning given the restriction on language.

But what you are claiming it was was neither unique nor unexpected and there was well established language for talking about that sort of thing.

That the texts are nuanced and ambiguous is to be expected.

Of course, but that doesn't mean there are no limits on what is reasonable interpretation. There's a difference between stretching language and using it for the exact opposite.

Are you seriously suggesting that John is empirically and documentary evidence?

I'm suggesting that if one chooses what texts one will consider evidence, and chooses what words will mean within those texts then the argument is looking silly even by the standards of argument from silence. You're choosing your data to suit your argument, and then manipulating even that data. Of course John is documentary evidence - every first century text speaking of the issue is documentary evidence.

Paul certainly spoke in dualistic terms.

I disagree - you're reading Paul through too much of a dualist lens and giving him insufficent credit for his Jewish thinking.

Then I fail to understand the 'need' to produce a physical body.

I don't need to produce a physical body. You're equivocating between producing the body as evidence, and the differing implications of bodily resurrection verses "a pure spiritual experience". There's a difference between having literally killed someone or only metaphorically done so whether or not I can produce the corpse. A bodily resurrection is the concrete beginning of New Creation - whether or not I can produce the body.

I am not 'spiritualizing'. What I am arguing is that there is a need to embrace the idea that God's Spirit does dwell within. It is that indwelling that perhaps needs better recognized.

Nobody is arguing against that, and nothing about physical resurrection argues against that.
Arguing for a non-physical event in place of the physical resurrection is not an argument for greater appreciation of the work of the Spirit, its an argument against the event that defines Christianity.

 

[ebia]

Add Ben Witherington to the above list, of course.
Craig Keener.
William Larkin
Alan Johnson
Paul Barnett
Eugene Peterson
Darrell Bock
David Jackman
...
Need I go on?

 

[wayseer]

Add Ben Witherington to the above list, of course.
Craig Keener.
William Larkin
Alan Johnson
Paul Barnett
Eugene Peterson
Darrell Bock
David Jackman
...
Need I go on?

Crag Keener makes no claim to the resurrection as purely physical. In The Historical Jesus of the Gospels he is making another argument about the legitimacy of evidence.

Neither Alan Johnson or William Larkin are critical scholars.

Paul Barret makes mention of 'physical' appearance of Jesus to Paul but one has to ask how this physical appearance was not witnessed by Paul's attendants.

Interestingly you make no mention of James D.G. Dunn who does claim a physical resurrection. But then Dunn also believes Paul is an gnostic.

But just listing those who might advocate a physical resurrection does not, by itself, prove the argument. Numbers are not always a good reason for following a particular path. Indeed, if one to rely on number then the majority of Westerners do not believe in God.

But as yet you have not formulated any alternative argument other than to say that I am wrong. You have yet to demonstrate how a physical body can walk through walls and defy gravity. Clearly what the early Christians experienced was something of God which was connected to Jesus and that something was not bound to this earthly realm as is a body.

So I remain with the OP - that there is evidence of the indwelling of the Spirit of God and that it was this experience that galvanized the otherwise terrified disciples and followers of Jesus.

Having said that I do not wish to further engage with your debate.

 

[MKJ]

So I remain with the OP - that there is evidence of the indwelling of the Spirit of God and that it was this experience that galvanized the otherwise terrified disciples and followers of Jesus.

That isn't what the OP said, and I have not seen anyone argue that there wasn't an experience of the indwelling of God by the disciples. That however is usually described as happening explicitly after the ascension, at Pentecost.

To be clear, the lady in the OP believed in a physical Resurrection, and in the ascension, and believed that after that in Heaven Christ turned into a spirit and came down to dwell within individuals, creating a new physical body by union with them.

It's pretty much conflating the HS and Christ.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I will make this statement and then let you all at it again. I have only skimmed this argument. But anyone who denies that the Lord rose in the self same body in which He died is considered a heretic by the Catholic, the Orthodox and most Protestant churches, except for the most liberal of them.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I will make this statement and then let you all at it again. I have only skimmed this argument. But anyone who denies that the Lord rose in the self same body in which He died is considered a heretic by the Catholic, the Orthodox and most Protestant churches, except for the most liberal of them.

Glad I'm not alone in this.
Carry on.

 

[ebia]

Crag Keener makes no claim to the resurrection as purely physical.

What does "purely" mean in that sentence? The claim is that the resurrection is physical - I don't understand what you mean by putting "purely" in there.

In The Historical Jesus of the Gospels he is making another argument about the legitimacy of evidence.

Since I didn't cite any particular work I'm not sure how you are able to say what someone does not claim unless they've said something explicit about not claiming it.

Neither Alan Johnson or William Larkin are critical scholars.

They're sufficiently scholarly to write published commentaries. As I said, I'll leave it to you to decide who counts as a critical scholar.

resurrection. But then Dunn also believes Paul is an gnostic.

But just listing those who might advocate a physical resurrection does not, by itself, prove the argument.

Of course it doesn't. It was simply a direct answer to a direct question you set.

But as yet you have not formulated any alternative argument other than to say that I am wrong.

I've pointed to what the word meant, and I've cited a book that deals with it in detail. I've pointed to the fact that there existed very good language for talking about the sort of thing you claim it is and that they eschew that langauge for language that directly opposes it. I've pointed to the fact that the sort of thing you imagine was not unexpected and yet they all claim this was so completely unexpected as to demand a completely rethought worldview. I can hardly reproduce 800 pages of scholarly argument but I think I have fairly summarised a few of the main points. I have also offered to work through Resurrection of the Son of God and Wright's argument. Or, if you'd prefer something that presents more than one side of the debate perhaps The Meaning of Jesus (Borg and Wright) or Resurrection (Crossan and Wright) - though the latter would require time for me to get a copy.

You have yet to demonstrate how a physical body can walk through walls and defy gravity.

Clearly there is both continuity and discontinuity. Nobody is claiming that the resurrection, glorified, "new creation" body is identical in property to this one - that would be simple recussitation (as per Lazarus). What the texts - both Paul and the Gospels - are clearly struggling with is describing something that is both like and unlike, physical and yet different in its physicality, recognisable and yet strikingly different "they did not dare ask who it was because they knew it was the Lord".

Having said that I do not wish to further engage with your debate.

You're choice.

 

[wayseer]

I will make this statement and then let you all at it again. I have only skimmed this argument. But anyone who denies that the Lord rose in the self same body in which He died is considered a heretic by the Catholic, the Orthodox and most Protestant churches, except for the most liberal of them.

Please demonstrate where one must believe in only a physical resurrection.

During the course of the debate I have provided scripture to support my argument that the resurrection was not conceived by the early Christians as purely physical.

 

[wayseer]

What does "purely" mean in that sentence? The claim is that the resurrection is physical - I don't understand what you mean by putting "purely" in there.

Only physical - is that better?

Since I didn't cite any particular work I'm not sure how you are able to say what someone does not claim unless they've said something explicit about not claiming it.

I have invited you to supply the source of your claims but to date you have studiously avoided in doing so.

They're sufficiently scholarly to write published commentaries. As I said, I'll leave it to you to decide who counts as a critical scholar.

That is the point - critical scholars do not pander to the status quo.

Of course it doesn't. It was simply a direct answer to a direct question you set.

Then I fail why your make mention of these scholars. If they make some contribution to your argument I would have thought your could provide the source.

I've pointed to what the word meant, and I've cited a book that deals with it in detail. I've pointed to the fact that there existed very good language for talking about the sort of thing you claim it is and that they eschew that langauge for language that directly opposes it. I've pointed to the fact that the sort of thing you imagine was not unexpected and yet they all claim this was so completely unexpected as to demand a completely rethought worldview. I can hardly reproduce 800 pages of scholarly argument but I think I have fairly summarised a few of the main points. I have also offered to work through Resurrection of the Son of God and Wright's argument. Or, if you'd prefer something that presents more than one side of the debate perhaps The Meaning of Jesus (Borg and Wright) or Resurrection (Crossan and Wright) - though the latter would require time for me to get a copy.

I have read Borg and Wright but their argument surrounds epistemology and the 'ways of knowing' the 'historical Jesus' and not the resurrection. For instance Wright writes;

When someone claims to ‘know’ Jesus of Nazareth ... they are making a claim about others things as well: the existence of a nonspaitiotemporal world; the existence of Jesus within that world; the possibility of presently alive human beings having access to that world, and of this being actually true in their case. They are claiming, more particularly, to know one person in particular, a distinctive and recognizable person, within that world, and that this person is identified as Jesus. This knowledge is what many people, myself included, are referring to when we say that we know Jesus, ‘by faith’. (p25)

You might note the Wright's use of the word 'nonspaitiotemoral' - something that exists beyond the world. But what Wright is endeavouring to do is marry the 'premodern approach' with a post-modern world and its thinking but in doing so his claim to 'faith' is, in effect, a claim to knowledge and reason.

If Wright's epistemological lens is grounded in knowledge and reason then faith as knowledge does not necessarily mean that something did happen(Borg, same publication P 234).

Clearly there is both continuity and discontinuity. Nobody is claiming that the resurrection, glorified, "new creation" body is identical in property to this one - that would be simple recussitation (as per Lazarus). What the texts - both Paul and the Gospels - are clearly struggling with is describing something that is both like and unlike, physical and yet different in its physicality, recognisable and yet strikingly different "they did not dare ask who it was because they knew it was the Lord".

Which is exactly my argument. The point being that the resurrected body has a continuity with something previous which is recognizable and identifiable with a previous experience. I went at some length to point that out from the biblical text which you challenged. Now you are proposing the very argument I made many posts ago.

 

[MKJ]

They're sufficiently scholarly to write published commentaries. As I said, I'll leave it to you to decide who counts as a critical scholar.

That is the point - critical scholars do not pander to the status quo.

You mean you only consider them if they disagree with the traditional view, or only if they agree with you?

Either way, it's crazy. That is nothing to do with what a critical scholar is.

 

[ebia]

Only physical - is that better?

Not really, no. I don't know what an "only physical resurrection" means any more than I know what an "only physical life" means.

I have invited you to supply the source of your claims but to date you have studiously avoided in doing so.

No I have not. I have cited books by Tom Wright. When asked for a particular quote I have requested more detail about what sort of quote you wanted and you have not answered that. For the rest, you didn't ask for a list of citations, you asked for a list of scholars; clearly providing citations will take me considerably longer - some cases absurdly so and in at least one case I cannot since my knowledge of his view comes from personal conversation with him. Since the point was simply to show that there is some serious scholarship that takes physical resurrection seriously it's not actually necessary that I be right about every single author I listed; if there isn't sufficient trust in the conversation to assume that, while I'm capable of making mistakes on some I will have got most of them right, then I don't think I can be bothered to continue. This is a conversation between friends (albeit a robust one), not an academic essay.

That is the point - critical scholars do not pander to the status quo.

True Scotsman fallacy.

Then I fail why your make mention of these scholars.

Because its a direct answer to your direct question.

I have read Borg and Wright but their argument surrounds epistemology and the 'ways of knowing' the 'historical Jesus' and not the resurrection.

It's several years since I read The Meaning of Jesus but, IIRC, there's enough in there to get a serious conversation started if that had been where you wanted to go.

Which is exactly my argument. The point being that the resurrected body has a continuity with something previous which is recognizable and identifiable with a previous experience. I went at some length to point that out from the biblical text which you challenged. Now you are proposing the very argument I made many posts ago.

Several posts ago you were arguing against physicality for something entirely non-physical. If you're moving away from that, or we've been talking at cross-purposes, well to the good, but that hasn't been clear. Nobody has ever been claiming that the resurrected existence is identical to the current one, so pointing out that it has points of difference as well as points of similarity is attacking a straw-man. The claim that everyone has objected to is the claim that the resurrection is not physical (whatever that might mean). Resurrection is talking about something that is more than physical, but never less than physical.

 

[wayseer]

You mean you only consider them if they disagree with the traditional view, or only if they agree with you?

Either way, it's crazy. That is nothing to do with what a critical scholar is.

No. What I mean is that critical scholars do not pander to the status quo - that is why they are critical scholars.

"Critical' in theological terms is a hermeneutic that does not accept what others may say just because others have something to say. What critical scholars do is to develop a methodology on which to base a hermeneutic or argument which is also suspicious of their own presumptions and/or bias.

 

[wayseer]

No I have not. I have cited books by Tom Wright. When asked for a particular quote I have requested more detail about what sort of quote you wanted and you have not answered that.

You raise an argument then want me to supply you with a quote so you can defend your argument. Hey that's your responsibility - not mine.

This is a conversation between friends (albeit a robust one), not an academic essay.

But we still need to back our argument otherwise we are just sprouting words.

It's several years since I read The Meaning of Jesus but, IIRC, there's enough in there to get a serious conversation started if that had been where you wanted to go.

Not really. I just don't see where their discussion focuses on the resurrection so I really don't know why your raised this particular text.

Several posts ago you were arguing against physicality for something entirely non-physical.

I made a point, several times, that I am not ditching a physical resurrection. What I have been labouring to get across is that the biblical texts do not support the idea of a resurrection that is only physical.

If you're moving away from that

I have not moved away from anything. Perhaps I have not made myself clear as I could - but perhaps the NT writers were also labouring under the same burden - trying to make themselves understood.

Resurrection is talking about something that is more than physical, but never less than physical.

Are you playing catch up here?

That is what I have been saying all along - that the resurrection is NOT just, solely, purely (fill in the blank) physical - there was something more going on.

It's been hard work but I'm glad we got that cleared up.

 

[MKJ]

No. What I mean is that critical scholars do not pander to the status quo - that is why they are critical scholars.

"Critical' in theological terms is a hermeneutic that does not accept what others may say just because others have something to say. What critical scholars do is to develop a methodology on which to base a hermeneutic or argument which is also suspicious of their own presumptions and/or bias.

That is not what you said. You said that by definition they cannot agree with the traditional view and remain "critical scholars". Do you not see the problem such a silly definition creates? They would be assuming that the older view was wrong - surely that would be the epitome of falling prey to their own assumptions and world-view.

I know quite a few academics, and I have my degree in a subject chock-full of critical scholars, and nobody understands their role in that way. Yes, they use a particular type of methadology. No, they do not determine the outcome of their investigations by insisting that it must disagree with the status quo - they would be laughed out of academia if they did.

 

[ebia]

You raise an argument then want me to supply you with a quote so you can defend your argument.

No, I wanted you to tell me what sort of thing you want so I dont find and type up stuff that isn't what you want.

I made a point, several times, that I am not ditching a physical resurrection.

That has not been clear to me.

But we still need to back our argument otherwise we are just sprouting words.

And if we've been talking at cross purposes anyway it would have been a monumental waste of my time, wouldn't it?

What I have been labouring to get across is that the biblical texts do not support the idea of a resurrection that is only physical.

I still don't know what you could possibly mean by "only physical". Zombies walking around maybe - but that certainly wouldn't qualify as resurrection. I don't think one could sensibly describe the raising of Lazarus or "Talitha" as pure physical, let alone Jesus' resurrection.

That is what I have been saying all along - that the resurrection is NOT just, solely, purely (fill in the blank) physical - there was something more going on.

Of course resurrection is not purely physical - human life is not purely physical so a purely physical resurrection would be oxymoronic. Nobody with half a brain has claimed the resurrection is purely physical, but that it is intrinsically physical - you can't deprive it of its physicality and still be talking about resurrection.

It's been hard work but I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Worth the effort if we have.

 

[wayseer]

That is not what you said. You said that by definition they cannot agree with the traditional view and remain "critical scholars".

Where did I say as much? Please point out the relevant post.

 

[wayseer]

No, I wanted you to tell me what sort of thing you want so I dont find and type up stuff that isn't what you want.

... which is good because this give me the opportunity to post another Wright quote ....

The Early Christians believed that they themselves would be raised to a new, transformed bodily life at the time of the Lord's return or parousia (Mark for Everyone p 239).

You will note the words 'new' and ' transformed'.

And if we've been talking at cross purposes anyway it would have been a monumental waste of my time, wouldn't it?

Perhaps not.

I still don't know what you could possibly mean by "only physical". Zombies walking around maybe - but that certainly wouldn't qualify as resurrection. I don't think one could sensibly describe the raising of Lazarus or "Talitha" as pure physical, let alone Jesus' resurrection.

Hmmm ...

Of course resurrection is not purely physical - human life is not purely physical so a purely physical resurrection would be oxymoronic.

The human body is purely physical. It is only our cognitive processes that transcend the physical world.

Nobody with half a brain has claimed the resurrection is purely physical, but that it is intrinsically physical - you can't deprive it of its physicality and still be talking about resurrection.

Very nebulous of you - 'intrinsically'? In other words, 'not a real body'.

Worth the effort if we have.

Well, we seem to have an audience.

 

[ebia]

You will note the words 'new' and ' transformed'.

and? continuity and discontinuity

The human body is purely physical. It is only our cognitive processes that transcend the physical world.

And? Just as life involves the physical (body) but transcends that.

In other words, 'not a real body'.

yes, a real body. Resurrection is about the body but about more than just the body, just as life is.