How do full preterists interpret these passages?

[Kilk1]

Many good points here. But this does not change the fact that the body that is to be is NOT the same as the body that is sown.

In keeping with Paul's analogy, it is not the seed that rises after being sown, but the plant. Therefore, it is not the natural body that rises, but the spiritual body.





Correct, neither Thayer's nor HELPS provides a definition of "certainty" in regards to eggus/eggizo. Eggus/eggizo is only defined as literal nearness in regards to place and/or time.

Correct, the OT references you cited weren't fulfilled in literal chronological nearness after the prophecies were made.

Therefore, in order for "near" to maintain its definition of literal closeness in place or time, then the passages you cited should be understood in the prophetic perfect/present.



The prophetic perfect/present consists of oracles/prophecies about the future, written as if they have already happened or are currently happening. The OT is full of these.

Do you have any examples of NT prophetic perfect/present, where "near" is used, that you would like to discuss?




1.) I believe the destruction of Jerusalem was a coming of Christ. I do not believe this precludes a future coming of Christ.

2.) I believe the dead were raised to heaven in 70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future resurrection.

3.) I believe Christ came in judgment upon Israel in 66-70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future judgment.

Hope that helps!

1.) The old covenant was made obsolete for God's people at the 1st advent, through Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension.

a.)The old covenant was "made obsolete" for those in Christ, at the 1st advent.
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

b.)Christ "did away" with the first covenant at the 1st advent in order to establish the new covenant.
Hebrews 10:9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

c.)The law was a guardian for God's people "until" the coming of Christ.
galatians 3:24-25 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

d.)He set aside and nailed "to the cross", the record of debt and legal demands of the law.
colossians 2:14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

2.)This obsolete old covenant was fading away and was soon to vanish in the 1st century.

a.) the old covenant was growing old and ready to vanish away, when Hebrews was written
Hebrews 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

b.) the old covenant was fading away when 2 corinthians was written
2 corinthians 3:11 For if what is fading away came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

3.) Jewish Christian and Non-Christian Jews still partook in the the old obsolete covenant during the time it was fading away and growing old and ready to soon vanish.

a.) Christian Jews were zealous for the Law of Moses, long after the cross
acts 21:20-24 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law, and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs. What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.

b.) Paul preached the gospel to the Jews, who were under the law, long after the cross
1 corinthians 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

c.) The Jerusalem council seemed fit, under the guidance of the Spirit, not to burden the gentile Christians with all the Laws of Moses. There is no mention of the council of Jerusalem lifting the the burden for Jewish Christians.
acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

d.) The Jews that remained under the old obsolete covenant allegorically related to slaves in "present" earthly Jerusalem.
galatians 4:24-25 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;e she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children

e.) the curse of the old obsolete covenant would fall on those who rejected Christ
acts 3:22-23 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’

In Summation:

IMHO, the righteous standards of God are eternal and never changing. What changes is the agreement (covenant) between God and mankind. The old covenant was a temporal agreement between God and the nation of Israel, in place until the time of Christ. This agreement was simply an instructor pointing to the reality in Christ. In this agreement, Israel would obey all of God's righteous standards in order to receive blessings. If they disobeyed, they would receive curses.

When Christ came, He fulfilled the old covenant agreement, not only in perfect obedience, but also as the body that the shadow of the law pointed to. This action by Christ effectively superseded the old covenant with the new covenant agreement. Under the new covenant, all of the shadows/types and righteous standards of law of moses are now fulfilled in Christ, and thus fulfilled in those who are in Christ. We now strive to love God and our neighbor, not bound in slavery by the law in order to earn blessings or standing before God, but in freedom.

The old covenant agreement became obsolete at the cross. Those that attempted to partake in the obsolete old covenant agreement could only do so until 66-70ad, when it was permanently removed.

edit:

I think this is a good comparison

On mount Sinai, God entered into the old covenant agreement with the nation of Israel. Following this, Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years prior to entering the promised land. During this wandering many wanted to return to slavery in Egypt. Ultimately, Israel wandered until the disobedient generation died out, and the "faithful" entered the promised land.

So too, the new covenant was established at the cross. The following 40 years, many Jews returned to the slavery of the old obsolete covenant, and ultimately the generation that rejected Christ, was utterly destroyed in the Jewish Roman war from 66-70ad.

Hello again! My main objection on the OT issue was whether preterists believe Christians were under the OT and NT simultaneously. It doesn't sound like you believe that, so I'll drop the point. As for the nature of the resurrection, I agree the post-resurrection is different than the pre-resurrection body, but I'd say it's because the pre- transforms into the post-. What would you say is the antecedent of the highlighted "it" in 1 Corinthians 15:42? "So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption." I'd say the antecedent is the body that's sown in corruption; do you? Also, why does John 5:28-29 talk of them leaving the graves/tombs rather than leaving Hades? Finally, what is the "it" of Philippians 3:21? "who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." I don't see viable answers to these questions that describe an event that's already happened.

As for the "at hand" statements, isn't the preterist argument that passages like James 5:8 and 1 Peter 4:7 speak of the events as being "at hand" and therefore were chronologically imminent? One non-preterist interpretation I know of that doesn't make the term mean "certainty," is that the end is always "near" in the sense that it could happen any moment. I'll confess that I don't know the best interpretation to go with, but one thing I know is that the type of resurrection I'm seeing in 1 Corinthians 15, John 5:28-29, and Philippians 3:20-21 does not sound like anything that's happened yet.

That being said, maybe we're closer in agreement than it seems. Even you'd say that the A.D. 70 coming doesn't preclude a future coming. In fact, looking back at your list--

1.) I believe the destruction of Jerusalem was a coming of Christ. I do not believe this precludes a future coming of Christ.

2.) I believe the dead were raised to heaven in 70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future resurrection.

3.) I believe Christ came in judgment upon Israel in 66-70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future judgment.

--I agree with 1) and 3). Maybe I'm kind of a partial preterist; I don't know. With these things in mind, perhaps the future coming that comes after A.D. 70 is where the resurrection I've described happens.

A separate, but related, question is: What passages do you believe have a post-70 fulfillment? Or are you like Parousia70, who believes all Scripture was fulfilled by A.D. 70 but that extrabiblical literature has a post-70 fulfillment?

 

[claninja]

What would you say is the antecedent of the highlighted "it" in 1 Corinthians 15:42? "So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption." I'd say the antecedent is the body that's sown in corruption; do you?

The word body is not found in 1 corinthians 15:42. The only noun in vs 42 is "resurrection".

1 corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption

So what is the antecedent of the "it" that is sown in corruption, and is it the same antecedent as the "it" that is raised in incorruption?

1.) In the previous paragraph, is the body that is sown the same body that is raised? No. Paul clearly states the body that is sown is NOT the body it is to be.

1 corinthians 15:35-41 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 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: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 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. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 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.

2.) Paul clearly mentions 2 bodies: 1 that is natural and 1 that is spiritual.
1 corinthians 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.

Therefore, I don't think the argument of the antecedent to "it" of the body sown in corruption is the same "it" of the body that is raised in incorruption works in this case.

Also, why does John 5:28-29 talk of them leaving the graves/tombs rather than leaving Hades? Finally, what is the "it" of Philippians 3:21? "who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." I don't see viable answers to these questions that describe an event that's already happened.

I don't believe the soul simply goes from hades to heaven. I believe that the body that is raised from the "grave" or "tomb" or "dust" or "sea" or wherever the dead died, is a spiritual body. I don't believe this requires a raising of the natural body that was sown, as paul doesn't say the natural body is raised and then is transformed. Paul simply says it is raised a spiritual body.

If this is the nature of the resurrection, then it is possible for a resurrection to have occurred at the coming of Christ in judgment on Israel.

As for the "at hand" statements, isn't the preterist argument that passages like James 5:8 and 1 Peter 4:7 speak of the events as being "at hand" and therefore were chronologically imminent?

Correct. IMHO, these events being the coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel in 66-70ad, which occurred during the generation of Jesus' contemporaries (Matthew 24:34)

One non-preterist interpretation I know of that doesn't make the term mean "certainty," is that the end is always "near" in the sense that it could happen any moment.

Which is not a valid argument. If you were waiting in a pharmacy for a very important prescription and the pharmacist says your prescription will be ready soon or is near completion, would it be acceptable for you to sit in the pharmacy 6 months? how about 8 years? If after 100 years of waiting for a very important prescription, is it still near to being ready for pick up?

I'll confess that I don't know the best interpretation to go with, but one thing I know is that the type of resurrection I'm seeing in 1 Corinthians 15, John 5:28-29, and Philippians 3:20-21 does not sound like anything that's happened yet.

I agree, if the resurrection of the dead involves the dust particles being re animated into bones, muscles, ligaments, blood, and organs (similar to the vision in Ezekiel 37, except this being literal), then coming out of tombs and graves, only then to be transformed into a spiritual body, then yes, the resurrection has not yet occurred.

That being said, maybe we're closer in agreement than it seems. Even you'd say that the A.D. 70 coming doesn't preclude a future coming. In fact, looking back at your list--

1.) I believe the destruction of Jerusalem was a coming of Christ. I do not believe this precludes a future coming of Christ.

2.) I believe the dead were raised to heaven in 70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future resurrection.

3.) I believe Christ came in judgment upon Israel in 66-70ad. I do not believe this precludes a future judgment.

--I agree with 1) and 3). Maybe I'm kind of a partial preterist; I don't know. With these things in mind, perhaps the future coming that comes after A.D. 70 is where the resurrection I've described happens.

If you agree with points 1 and 3 you are definitely a partial preterist. If you believe 1,2, and 3 to be correct, you would be an extreme partial preterist. If you believe points 1,2,3 DO preclude a future coming, resurrection, and judgment, you would be a full preterist.

What passages do you believe have a post-70 fulfillment?

Here's 1:

I have not stood before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due. This is future
2 corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

 

[FulfilledInHim]

So from a full preterist perspective, the Resurrection was spiritual and “rose” our spiritual bodies in a very literal but spiritual sense. Our spiritual man exists within us without Christ, but was sentenced to Sheol, (where all the dead, righteous and wicked, went after death before Jesus opened heaven, ie the resurrection) Therefore just as Jesus said that “none have ascended into heaven, except the Son of Man that came down from heaven” Preterists believe at the time those words were spoken by Christ, just as John says in his letters, only 3 bore witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t until the promised Resurrection at the end of the Age of the Old Covenant, when heaven would be opened to all who believe. To this day, Heaven is filled with all the Family of God because the Resurrection took place just when the Bible said it would.
Make sense?

In Luke 20:
Those who are counted worthy to attain that age, (speaking of The Spiritual Messianic age for which He was ushering in) they will attain the Resurrection when they die, and become like the angels (no more flesh and blood)

1cor 15:

The body is “sown” a natural body (being Born of water from the womb) and “raised” a spiritual one. See John 3 and must be “born from above” raised = being born from heaven.






QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75565274, member: 421182"]Hello! I've seen the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24, and it's made me think. However, other passages currently prevent me from adopting a full preterist view of eschatology. I'll list the passages I'm referring to alongside my interpretations of them. If there are any full preterists on the site, how do you interpret the following passages?


Luke 20:27-36
Here, some Sadducees come to Jesus. They deny the resurrection, so they bring up a scenario where a man dies childless, so his brother marries his widow (as was practiced in the Law of Moses) and then dies. The cycle continues until the widow's been married seven times to seven brothers, and then she herself dies (vv. 27-32). "Therefore," the Sadducees ask, "in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife" (v. 33).

Their assumption about marriage existing in the resurrection is flawed, however, destroying their argument. Jesus explains: "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (vv. 34-36).

In the resurrection, there is no marriage. Since people marry now, isn't the resurrection yet to come? Also—and this is important—in the resurrection, people can't "die anymore." This implies they could die before but could no longer die after the resurrection. This isn't discussing spiritual death, since Jesus gives the reason they couldn't die anymore: "for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (v. 36).

Since angels can die spiritually (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), isn't this passage teaching that in the resurrection, people can't physically die anymore, making them like angels?

1 Corinthians 15
In this chapter, what's said to be first is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead (vv. 3-4). This seems to have in mind His corporeal body, as it's the part of Him that died, was buried, and rose again. We're later told that the resurrected Christ "has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). This suggests that others would later undergo the same thing, "each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming" (v. 23).

Paul elaborates on this as the chapter goes on. When Christ comes, the natural body apparently becomes the spiritual body: "The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:42-44). Notice the pronouns; the thing that's "sown in corruption" is the same thing that's "raised in incorruption," etc. There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter.

To summarize, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again all corporeally and that the same thing will happen to us at His coming. (Compare Romans 8:11, which says that "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies," and Philippians 3:21, which says Christ "will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.") Since the saints' corporeal bodies haven't been raised from the dead yet, wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Ephesians 2:14-16 and Romans 7:1-6
The previous passages dealt with the resurrection, while these two deal with the old covenant, the law of Moses. According to full preterism, there was a 40-year period of overlap between the old and new covenants, starting with the crucifixion of Christ and ending with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. However, Ephesians 2:14-16 discusses "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" as being abolished through Christ's death on the cross.

Also, Romans 7:1-6 explains that we can't be married to Christ until we've "become dead to the law through the body of Christ" in the same way that a wife can't marry someone else until her husband dies. Anything else would be adulterous.

Do these passages confirm that the old covenant ended the same time the new covenant began―namely, at the cross―and that you can't be under both at the same time?

2 Peter 3
From what I've read, conservative scholars date 2 Peter in the mid-to-late 60s, shortly before A.D. 70. And yet, 2 Peter 3 is the passage that warns Christians to be patient about Christ's coming, teaching "that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'" (vv. 3-4). Notice the mention of "creation" here refers to the beginning of the physical Universe, and Peter responds saying "they willfully forget" that in the past, "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (vv. 5-6).

Peter then says that instead of water, fire is reserved for "the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word" (v. 7). He reminds them again to wait, since God wants time for people to repent rather than perish (vv. 8-9). Peter then says again how the present heavens and earth will melt with fire, and so we better live "in holy conduct and godliness" (vv. 11-12).

Since the context is on "the beginning of creation," and since the comparison with the past is the physical word perishing with water, wouldn't the natural interpretation of what's to come be that the physical world will be destroyed by fire—making the elements that melt the elements of the physical Universe?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer my questions![/QUOTE]

Hello! I've seen the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24, and it's made me think. However, other passages currently prevent me from adopting a full preterist view of eschatology. I'll list the passages I'm referring to alongside my interpretations of them. If there are any full preterists on the site, how do you interpret the following passages?


Luke 20:27-36
Here, some Sadducees come to Jesus. They deny the resurrection, so they bring up a scenario where a man dies childless, so his brother marries his widow (as was practiced in the Law of Moses) and then dies. The cycle continues until the widow's been married seven times to seven brothers, and then she herself dies (vv. 27-32). "Therefore," the Sadducees ask, "in the resurrection, whose wife does she become? For all seven had her as wife" (v. 33).

Their assumption about marriage existing in the resurrection is flawed, however, destroying their argument. Jesus explains: "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (vv. 34-36).

In the resurrection, there is no marriage. Since people marry now, isn't the resurrection yet to come? Also—and this is important—in the resurrection, people can't "die anymore." This implies they could die before but could no longer die after the resurrection. This isn't discussing spiritual death, since Jesus gives the reason they couldn't die anymore: "for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (v. 36).

Since angels can die spiritually (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6), isn't this passage teaching that in the resurrection, people can't physically die anymore, making them like angels?

1 Corinthians 15
In this chapter, what's said to be first is that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead (vv. 3-4). This seems to have in mind His corporeal body, as it's the part of Him that died, was buried, and rose again. We're later told that the resurrected Christ "has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v. 20). This suggests that others would later undergo the same thing, "each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming" (v. 23).

Paul elaborates on this as the chapter goes on. When Christ comes, the natural body apparently becomes the spiritual body: "The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor. 15:42-44). Notice the pronouns; the thing that's "sown in corruption" is the same thing that's "raised in incorruption," etc. There are two kinds of bodies, but the former becomes the latter.

To summarize, 1 Corinthians 15 seems to teach that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again all corporeally and that the same thing will happen to us at His coming. (Compare Romans 8:11, which says that "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies," and Philippians 3:21, which says Christ "will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.") Since the saints' corporeal bodies haven't been raised from the dead yet, wouldn't such be yet to come, going against full preterism?

Ephesians 2:14-16 and Romans 7:1-6
The previous passages dealt with the resurrection, while these two deal with the old covenant, the law of Moses. According to full preterism, there was a 40-year period of overlap between the old and new covenants, starting with the crucifixion of Christ and ending with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. However, Ephesians 2:14-16 discusses "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" as being abolished through Christ's death on the cross.

Also, Romans 7:1-6 explains that we can't be married to Christ until we've "become dead to the law through the body of Christ" in the same way that a wife can't marry someone else until her husband dies. Anything else would be adulterous.

Do these passages confirm that the old covenant ended the same time the new covenant began―namely, at the cross―and that you can't be under both at the same time?

2 Peter 3
From what I've read, conservative scholars date 2 Peter in the mid-to-late 60s, shortly before A.D. 70. And yet, 2 Peter 3 is the passage that warns Christians to be patient about Christ's coming, teaching "that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'" (vv. 3-4). Notice the mention of "creation" here refers to the beginning of the physical Universe, and Peter responds saying "they willfully forget" that in the past, "the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water" (vv. 5-6).

Peter then says that instead of water, fire is reserved for "the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word" (v. 7). He reminds them again to wait, since God wants time for people to repent rather than perish (vv. 8-9). Peter then says again how the present heavens and earth will melt with fire, and so we better live "in holy conduct and godliness" (vv. 11-12).

Since the context is on "the beginning of creation," and since the comparison with the past is the physical word perishing with water, wouldn't the natural interpretation of what's to come be that the physical world will be destroyed by fire—making the elements that melt the elements of the physical Universe?

Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer my questions!

 

[Kilk1]

The word body is not found in 1 corinthians 15:42. The only noun in vs 42 is "resurrection".

1 corinthians 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption

So what is the antecedent of the "it" that is sown in corruption, and is it the same antecedent as the "it" that is raised in incorruption?

1.) In the previous paragraph, is the body that is sown the same body that is raised? No. Paul clearly states the body that is sown is NOT the body it is to be.

1 corinthians 15:35-41 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 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: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 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. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 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.

2.) Paul clearly mentions 2 bodies: 1 that is natural and 1 that is spiritual.
1 corinthians 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.

Therefore, I don't think the argument of the antecedent to "it" of the body sown in corruption is the same "it" of the body that is raised in incorruption works in this case.



I don't believe the soul simply goes from hades to heaven. I believe that the body that is raised from the "grave" or "tomb" or "dust" or "sea" or wherever the dead died, is a spiritual body. I don't believe this requires a raising of the natural body that was sown, as paul doesn't say the natural body is raised and then is transformed. Paul simply says it is raised a spiritual body.

If this is the nature of the resurrection, then it is possible for a resurrection to have occurred at the coming of Christ in judgment on Israel.



Correct. IMHO, these events being the coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel in 66-70ad, which occurred during the generation of Jesus' contemporaries (Matthew 24:34)



Which is not a valid argument. If you were waiting in a pharmacy for a very important prescription and the pharmacist says your prescription will be ready soon or is near completion, would it be acceptable for you to sit in the pharmacy 6 months? how about 8 years? If after 100 years of waiting for a very important prescription, is it still near to being ready for pick up?



I agree, if the resurrection of the dead involves the dust particles being re animated into bones, muscles, ligaments, blood, and organs (similar to the vision in Ezekiel 37, except this being literal), then coming out of tombs and graves, only then to be transformed into a spiritual body, then yes, the resurrection has not yet occurred.






If you agree with points 1 and 3 you are definitely a partial preterist. If you believe 1,2, and 3 to be correct, you would be an extreme partial preterist. If you believe points 1,2,3 DO preclude a future coming, resurrection, and judgment, you would be a full preterist.



Here's 1:

I have not stood before the judgment seat of Christ to receive what is due. This is future
2 corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

You're right about the word "body" not being in verse 42, but would you agree it's implied? The KJV rendering is closer to the original: "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption." While it seems quite obvious to me that the answer's the same for both, I'll ask: What would you say is the antecedent of the first "It," and what would you say is the antecedent of the second "it" in verse 42?

In 1 Corinthians 15:37, it's clear that the body that's sown is different from the body that's raised; I agree. (The immediate context is referring to "wheat or some other grain" rather than to our bodies, of course, but the extended context of the chapter makes clear he's drawing a parallel between seeds and our bodies.) Obviously, you don't sow seeds in hope of reaping seeds; rather, you want to reap plants. While the seed is a seed when sown, you want it to be raised as a plant. (Noticed I highlighted "it" to parallel how Paul discusses it here.) But that doesn't change the fact that it was sown as one thing and it becomes something else.

When saying it is sown one thing and it is raised another thing, what's clear is that in one sense, you have two different things--what "it" was when sown and what "it" will be when raised. But in another sense, it's the same thing. That's why we call both the same "it." A similar analogy would be to say a baby is not what he shall be. He is born a baby; he is raised into an adult. However, both the baby and adult are clearly the same "he." Different, but the same.

This is further confirmed by John 5:28-29, which says an hour would come in which all who are in the graves would come out to be judged. To make sure I understand your position--since it isn't that the soul simply goes from Hades to heaven--where would the soul be before this "hour," and where does it go after?

Also, don't forget the "it" of Philippians 3:21, "who will transform our lowly body that it [i.e., our lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." If the antecedent here is not "our lowly body," what is it? Whatever "it" is, it's transformed to be similar to Christ's glorious body. How do you interpret this verse?

It's interesting that we're actually both partial preterists. So do you believe 2 Corinthians 5:10 to be referencing a future coming of Jesus to judge everyone? If so, assuming I'm rightly understanding you, how might this differ from your view of John 5:28-29?

 

[Kilk1]

So from a full preterist perspective, the Resurrection was spiritual and “rose” our spiritual bodies in a very literal but spiritual sense. Our spiritual man exists within us without Christ, but was sentenced to Sheol, (where all the dead, righteous and wicked, went after death before Jesus opened heaven, ie the resurrection) Therefore just as Jesus said that “none have ascended into heaven, except the Son of Man that came down from heaven” Preterists believe at the time those words were spoken by Christ, just as John says in his letters, only 3 bore witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t until the promised Resurrection at the end of the Age of the Old Covenant, when heaven would be opened to all who believe. To this day, Heaven is filled with all the Family of God because the Resurrection took place just when the Bible said it would.
Make sense?

In Luke 20:
Those who are counted worthy to attain that age, (speaking of The Spiritual Messianic age for which He was ushering in) they will attain the Resurrection when they die, and become like the angels (no more flesh and blood)

1cor 15:

The body is “sown” a natural body (being Born of water from the womb) and “raised” a spiritual one. See John 3 and must be “born from above” raised = being born from heaven.

Hello! So, in Luke 20:34, Jesus says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage" (NKJV). Then in the next verse, Luke 20:35, He continues, "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Does this mean that marriage is part of the Age of the Old Covenant but not part of the Spiritual Messianic Age?

In Luke 20:37, Jesus finishes the sentence, "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Does this mean that in the Age of the Old Covenant, death was possible, but in the Spiritual Messianic Age, it wouldn't be anymore, due to them being like angels?

If the answers to both questions are "Yes," I have a third question: What age are we (you and I specifically) in today?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, are you saying that the resurrection is being "born again" (or "born from above") as we read in John 5? If so, since the resurrection would happen at Christ's coming (1 Corinthians 15:23), are you saying that no one was born again before A.D. 70? Thanks!

 

[FulfilledInHim]

Yea they were saved and born from above ( John 3 ) like we are awaiting our own personal resurrection when our bodies die. This is all Jesus is speaking about here in Luke 20. In the resurrection or , in heaven in the place prepared for them, there is no marrying or giving in marriage.


QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75734227, member: 421182"]Hello! So, in Luke 20:34, Jesus says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage" (NKJV). Then in the next verse, Luke 20:35, He continues, "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Does this mean that marriage is part of the Age of the Old Covenant but not part of the Spiritual Messianic Age?

In Luke 20:37, Jesus finishes the sentence, "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Does this mean that in the Age of the Old Covenant, death was possible, but in the Spiritual Messianic Age, it wouldn't be anymore, due to them being like angels?

If the answers to both questions are "Yes," I have a third question: What age are we (you and I specifically) in today?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, are you saying that the resurrection is being "born again" (or "born from above") as we read in John 5? If so, since the resurrection would happen at Christ's coming (1 Corinthians 15:23), are you saying that no one was born again before A.D. 70? Thanks![/QUOTE]

Hello! So, in Luke 20:34, Jesus says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage" (NKJV). Then in the next verse, Luke 20:35, He continues, "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Does this mean that marriage is part of the Age of the Old Covenant but not part of the Spiritual Messianic Age?

In Luke 20:37, Jesus finishes the sentence, "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Does this mean that in the Age of the Old Covenant, death was possible, but in the Spiritual Messianic Age, it wouldn't be anymore, due to them being like angels?

If the answers to both questions are "Yes," I have a third question: What age are we (you and I specifically) in today?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, are you saying that the resurrection is being "born again" (or "born from above") as we read in John 5? If so, since the resurrection would happen at Christ's coming (1 Corinthians 15:23), are you saying that no one was born again before A.D. 70? Thanks!

Hello! So, in Luke 20:34, Jesus says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage" (NKJV). Then in the next verse, Luke 20:35, He continues, "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Does this mean that marriage is part of the Age of the Old Covenant but not part of the Spiritual Messianic Age?

In Luke 20:37, Jesus finishes the sentence, "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Does this mean that in the Age of the Old Covenant, death was possible, but in the Spiritual Messianic Age, it wouldn't be anymore, due to them being like angels?

If the answers to both questions are "Yes," I have a third question: What age are we (you and I specifically) in today?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, are you saying that the resurrection is being "born again" (or "born from above") as we read in John 5? If so, since the resurrection would happen at Christ's coming (1 Corinthians 15:23), are you saying that no one was born again before A.D. 70? Thanks!

Hello! So, in Luke 20:34, Jesus says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage" (NKJV). Then in the next verse, Luke 20:35, He continues, "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Does this mean that marriage is part of the Age of the Old Covenant but not part of the Spiritual Messianic Age?

In Luke 20:37, Jesus finishes the sentence, "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Does this mean that in the Age of the Old Covenant, death was possible, but in the Spiritual Messianic Age, it wouldn't be anymore, due to them being like angels?

If the answers to both questions are "Yes," I have a third question: What age are we (you and I specifically) in today?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, are you saying that the resurrection is being "born again" (or "born from above") as we read in John 5? If so, since the resurrection would happen at Christ's coming (1 Corinthians 15:23), are you saying that no one was born again before A.D. 70? Thanks!

 

[FulfilledInHim]

“nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Another way of saying “the second death has no power” Rev 20

This implies that they had to die to “attain that age and the resurrection” in the first place. Just like the first fruit , Jesus had to.

 

[Kilk1]

Yea they were saved and born from above ( John 3 ) like we are awaiting our own personal resurrection when our bodies die. This is all Jesus is speaking about here in Luke 20. In the resurrection or , in heaven in the place prepared for them, there is no marrying or giving in marriage.


QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75734227, member: 421182"]Hello! So, in Luke 20:34, Jesus says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage" (NKJV). Then in the next verse, Luke 20:35, He continues, "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Does this mean that marriage is part of the Age of the Old Covenant but not part of the Spiritual Messianic Age?

In Luke 20:37, Jesus finishes the sentence, "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Does this mean that in the Age of the Old Covenant, death was possible, but in the Spiritual Messianic Age, it wouldn't be anymore, due to them being like angels?

If the answers to both questions are "Yes," I have a third question: What age are we (you and I specifically) in today?

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15, are you saying that the resurrection is being "born again" (or "born from above") as we read in John 5? If so, since the resurrection would happen at Christ's coming (1 Corinthians 15:23), are you saying that no one was born again before A.D. 70? Thanks!

“nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Another way of saying “the second death has no power” Rev 20

This implies that they had to die to “attain that age and the resurrection” in the first place. Just like the first fruit , Jesus had to.

With these things in mind, which age are you and I in today? Jesus said that marriage is in "this age" (i.e., the age He was in while speaking, Luke 20:34), whereas marriage would not exist in "that age" (Luke 20:35).

A second question I have would be about the next verse, which says those in the age to come won't die, due to being like angels. If Luke 20:36 references what Revelation calls the "second death," and if people won't experience it due to being "equal to the angels," does this imply that angels are protected from the second death? If so, how is this reconciled with 2 Peter 2:4? Thanks!

 

[claninja]

You're right about the word "body" not being in verse 42, but would you agree it's implied? The KJV rendering is closer to the original: "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption." While it seems quite obvious to me that the answer's the same for both, I'll ask: What would you say is the antecedent of the first "It," and what would you say is the antecedent of the second "it" in verse 42?

Just to be clear my argument wasn't that the "it" has a different antecedent. Only that looking what the antecedent for "it" is, doesn't necessarily prove that the natural body, that is sown, is the same body that is raised prior to its transformation, in the case of your position.

1 corinthians 15:37-38 and that which thou dost sow, not the body that shall be dost thou sow, but bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some one of the others, and God doth give to it a body according as He willed, and to each of the seeds its proper body.

1 corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;

In 1 Corinthians 15:37, it's clear that the body that's sown is different from the body that's raised; I agree. (The immediate context is referring to "wheat or some other grain" rather than to our bodies, of course, but the extended context of the chapter makes clear he's drawing a parallel between seeds and our bodies.) Obviously, you don't sow seeds in hope of reaping seeds; rather, you want to reap plants. While the seed is a seed when sown, you want it to be raised as a plant. (Noticed I highlighted "it" to parallel how Paul discusses it here.) But that doesn't change the fact that it was sown as one thing and it becomes something else.

Maybe you can clarify, as this is a little confusing for me. You agree it's clear that the body that is sown is different than the body that is raised.

But at the same time you believe the body that is raised is the same body that is sown, prior to its transformation to the spiritual body?

When saying it is sown one thing and it is raised another thing, what's clear is that in one sense, you have two different things--what "it" was when sown and what "it" will be when raised. But in another sense, it's the same thing. That's why we call both the same "it." A similar analogy would be to say a baby is not what he shall be. He is born a baby; he is raised into an adult. However, both the baby and adult are clearly the same "he." Different, but the same.

I disagree with the human analogy as applied to the resurrection.

I think the seed analogy is very fitting. What comes out of the ground is not the seed. The seed's endosperm, or shell, dies, and is removed under the earth. What sprouts forth is the plant.

I agree, 2 distinct entities (seed vs plant), but they are the same. It's not a different person that comes out of the grave, it is the same person, but new spiritual body, while the seed, or natural body, remains in the dust of the earth.

This is further confirmed by John 5:28-29, which says an hour would come in which all who are in the graves would come out to be judged. To make sure I understand your position--since it isn't that the soul simply goes from Hades to heaven--where would the soul be before this "hour," and where does it go after?

Natural body sown ( 1 corinthians 15:44)

Spiritual body raised (1 corinthians 15:44)

The spiritual body that is raised is not the same as the natural body that was sown (1 corinthians 15:37)

Therefore, I don't believe it is the natural body that is coming out of the tomb in John 5:28-29.

Also, don't forget the "it" of Philippians 3:21, "who will transform our lowly body that it [i.e., our lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." If the antecedent here is not "our lowly body," what is it? Whatever "it" is, it's transformed to be similar to Christ's glorious body. How do you interpret this verse?

Haven't studied this passage enough to make a concrete argument on it.

So do you believe 2 Corinthians 5:10 to be referencing a future coming of Jesus to judge everyone? If so, assuming I'm rightly understanding you, how might this differ from your view of John 5:28-29?

edit:

I believe 2 corinthians 5:10 is simply a reference to the fact that all will stand before Christ's judgment seat. I believe this began to be fulfilled in 70ad with John 5:28-29, and continues to this day.

Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

 

[FulfilledInHim]

There only 2 Ages spoken of by Jesus and the apostles, and frankly also by the Law and the Prophets. The Mosaic Age of the Law, and the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. Since we are no longer in the Mosaic Age of the Age which Jesus fulfilled, we are in the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. According to Hebrews 9 it indicates, along with writings from Paul, Peter, Acts, and John, that they were living in the Last Days of the Age of that Old Mosaic Covenant. There was an overlap between 30AD to 70AD (a complete 40 year generation) of both Covenants coexisting, hence why Jesus would say in Matthew 24:34 that all will be fulfilled within that generation, and also why the Law still had to be kept by Jews such as Jesus, Paul, and (Peter: baring his personal Revelation of its fulfillment even in the food Laws) Hebrews 9:8,9 says “as long as the first tabernacle remains standing, the Holy of Holies could not be made fully manifest”. That tabernacle was destroyed and no longer stood after 70 AD.

So I digress, after the 67-70Ad Judgment / “days of vengeance” of Luke 21:22 and Isaiah 61:2 and subsequent destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, Daniel 9:26. The Holy of Holies was made manifest in heaven and all believers in the Messiah are resurrected and reign as kings and priests with Jesus (Revelation 20:6) after they die the 1st death (On whom the 2nd death has no power).

So again, as you know in the Age of Messiah, He offers everlasting life to those who believe (they shall die no more). But it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death, but their faith in Jesus gave them everlasting life so they won’t die the second death. Being like angels just compares us to them.
As far as angels and the 2nd death, for all we know they don’t even experience the 1st death so I don’t think we can apply all this to them. This is our redemption plan, not theirs.


QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75739932, member: 421182"]With these things in mind, which age are you and I in today? Jesus said that marriage is in "this age" (i.e., the age He was in while speaking, Luke 20:34), whereas marriage would not exist in "that age" (Luke 20:35).

A second question I have would be about the next verse, which says those in the age to come won't die, due to being like angels. If Luke 20:36 references what Revelation calls the "second death," and if people won't experience it due to being "equal to the angels," does this imply that angels are protected from the second death? If so, how is this reconciled with 2 Peter 2:4? Thanks![/QUOTE]

With these things in mind, which age are you and I in today? Jesus said that marriage is in "this age" (i.e., the age He was in while speaking, Luke 20:34), whereas marriage would not exist in "that age" (Luke 20:35).

A second question I have would be about the next verse, which says those in the age to come won't die, due to being like angels. If Luke 20:36 references what Revelation calls the "second death," and if people won't experience it due to being "equal to the angels," does this imply that angels are protected from the second death? If so, how is this reconciled with 2 Peter 2:4? Thanks!

 

[FulfilledInHim]

And as far as Marriage happening in this age (Old Covenant Age) as per the Law of Moses. But in that age AND the resurrection of the dead”...which was the subject of the conversation...”there is no marriage or giving in marriage”...as Jesus continues..”BECAUSE they will be as the angels”...in other words, not flesh and blood, for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” we will LIVE and reign with Christ in heaven. Since Jesus’s Kingdom “is not of this world”. So the fleshly Covenant of marriage between a man and a woman does not apply. We are promised instead to be pillars in the New Jerusalem, which is His Bride. We collectively make up the City as His Bride. That is the only marriage that exists there.



QUOTE="FulfilledInHim, post: 75743328, member: 431271"]There only 2 Ages spoken of by Jesus and the apostles, and frankly also by the Law and the Prophets. The Mosaic Age of the Law, and the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. Since we are no longer in the Mosaic Age of the Age which Jesus fulfilled, we are in the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. According to Hebrews 9 it indicates, along with writings from Paul, Peter, Acts, and John, that they were living in the Last Days of the Age of that Old Mosaic Covenant. There was an overlap between 30AD to 70AD (a complete 40 year generation) of both Covenants coexisting, hence why Jesus would say in Matthew 24:34 that all will be fulfilled within that generation, and also why the Law still had to be kept by Jews such as Jesus, Paul, and (Peter: baring his personal Revelation of its fulfillment even in the food Laws) Hebrews 9:8,9 says “as long as the first tabernacle remains standing, the Holy of Holies could not be made fully manifest”. That tabernacle was destroyed and no longer stood after 70 AD.

So I digress, after the 67-70Ad Judgment / “days of vengeance” of Luke 21:22 and Isaiah 61:2 and subsequent destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, Daniel 9:26. The Holy of Holies was made manifest in heaven and all believers in the Messiah are resurrected and reign as kings and priests with Jesus (Revelation 20:6) after they die the 1st death (On whom the 2nd death has no power).

So again, as you know in the Age of Messiah, He offers everlasting life to those who believe (they shall die no more). But it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death, but their faith in Jesus gave them everlasting life so they won’t die the second death. Being like angels just compares us to them.
As far as angels and the 2nd death, for all we know they don’t even experience the 1st death so I don’t think we can apply all this to them. This is our redemption plan, not theirs.


QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75739932, member: 421182"]With these things in mind, which age are you and I in today? Jesus said that marriage is in "this age" (i.e., the age He was in while speaking, Luke 20:34), whereas marriage would not exist in "that age" (Luke 20:35).

A second question I have would be about the next verse, which says those in the age to come won't die, due to being like angels. If Luke 20:36 references what Revelation calls the "second death," and if people won't experience it due to being "equal to the angels," does this imply that angels are protected from the second death? If so, how is this reconciled with 2 Peter 2:4? Thanks![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Nd as far as marriage

 

[Kilk1]

Just to be clear my argument wasn't that the "it" has a different antecedent. Only that looking what the antecedent for "it" is, doesn't necessarily prove that the natural body, that is sown, is the same body that is raised prior to its transformation, in the case of your position.

1 corinthians 15:37-38 and that which thou dost sow, not the body that shall be dost thou sow, but bare grain, it may be of wheat, or of some one of the others, and God doth give to it a body according as He willed, and to each of the seeds its proper body.

1 corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body;

It would've seemed contrived to assign different antecedents to "it" in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, so I'm glad that isn't your point. To make sure I understand, what are you saying the antecedent of "it" is in the chain of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44? I've assumed that everyone agrees the answer is "The body" (as supplied for clarity by the NKJV, NIV, WEB, etc. in v. 42), but just to make sure, are you saying the antecedent is something else?

Maybe you can clarify, as this is a little confusing for me. You agree it's clear that the body that is sown is different than the body that is raised.

But at the same time you believe the body that is raised is the same body that is sown, prior to its transformation to the spiritual body?

I disagree with the human analogy as applied to the resurrection.

I think the seed analogy is very fitting. What comes out of the ground is not the seed. The seed's endosperm, or shell, dies, and is removed under the earth. What sprouts forth is the plant.

I agree, 2 distinct entities (seed vs plant), but they are the same. It's not a different person that comes out of the grave, it is the same person, but new spiritual body, while the seed, or natural body, remains in the dust of the earth.

Okay, I hope to clarify. I believe that the same body that's sown in corruption is then, in some sense, raised in incorruption. (Is it raised straight to the afterlife and transformed simultaneously? I don't know; it's above my pay grade, haha!) The human analogy was to help illustrate my position, not necessarily yours. Something (or in my analogy, someone, a kid) can become something else (in my analogy, an adult), thus being the same (in one sense) but different (in another sense). It's in this sense that I understand 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. Something ("it") is sown one way (in corruption), and then "it"--therefore the same "something"--is raised another way (in incorruption), hence being different. Same in identity; different in nature, due to being transformed.

I don't know if Paul was referencing the endosperm in his analogy. I don't think the meaning is, that our spiritual body is dwelling within our physical body and will shed it off later. In fact, rather than shedding off something, Paul seems to think of us as being "further clothed" in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 2 Corinthians 5:4).

What does Paul say in his analogy? That's what's important, as we should only extend the analogy as far as he intended it to go; no more, no less. His point is that something is "sown in corruption" and then "raised in incorruption" (v. 42). What is this something (this "it") in your view?

Natural body sown ( 1 corinthians 15:44)

Spiritual body raised (1 corinthians 15:44)

The spiritual body that is raised is not the same as the natural body that was sown (1 corinthians 15:37)

Therefore, I don't believe it is the natural body that is coming out of the tomb in John 5:28-29.

The passages you've referenced more closely could be worded like this:

1) "It" is sown a natural body ( 1 corinthians 15:44).

2) "It" is raised a spiritual body (1 corinthians 15:44).

3) The spiritual body that is raised is not the same as the natural body that was sown (1 corinthians 15:37).

What do you believe is the "it" in this passage? I assume we agree that the "it" is our body, but whatever "it" is, we know that 1) "it" is sown a natural body and then 2) "it" is raised a spiritual body. So it makes perfect sense to say that 3) what "it" becomes is different from what it was previously (or, more parallel to verse 37, what it is at first is different from what it shall be later).

Actually, the points connect quite well. I assume we agree that the "it" is our body. Going in the order that Paul lists the points, then, we can say that 3) "our body" is not what it shall be because 1) "our body" is sown a natural body, and then 2) "our body" is raised a spiritual body. There's certainly no contradiction here.

Haven't studied this passage enough to make a concrete argument on it.

From what I've been able to tell, Philippians 3:20-21 is a clear passage showing that our lowly body is transformed to be like Christ's glorious body. It strongly corroborates what I've said on 1 Corinthians 15.

edit:

I believe 2 corinthians 5:10 is simply a reference to the fact that all will stand before Christ's judgment seat. I believe this began to be fulfilled in 70ad with John 5:28-29, and continues to this day.

Hebrews 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

I see, you believe that it parallels John 5:28-29 and was fulfilled in A.D. 70, though continuing today as people die. Does this differ from a full preterist interpretation?

Connecting John 5:28-29 to 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3:21, I'd instead say that for them to be raised out of the tombs would include their entombed bodies being raised, paralleling Christ, the firstfruits (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23). When we're raised, our body will be "transformed" to be like Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21). Hence, "it" was natural when sown, but "it" will be spiritual when raised (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).

 

[Kilk1]

There only 2 Ages spoken of by Jesus and the apostles, and frankly also by the Law and the Prophets. The Mosaic Age of the Law, and the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. Since we are no longer in the Mosaic Age of the Age which Jesus fulfilled, we are in the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. According to Hebrews 9 it indicates, along with writings from Paul, Peter, Acts, and John, that they were living in the Last Days of the Age of that Old Mosaic Covenant. There was an overlap between 30AD to 70AD (a complete 40 year generation) of both Covenants coexisting, hence why Jesus would say in Matthew 24:34 that all will be fulfilled within that generation, and also why the Law still had to be kept by Jews such as Jesus, Paul, and (Peter: baring his personal Revelation of its fulfillment even in the food Laws) Hebrews 9:8,9 says “as long as the first tabernacle remains standing, the Holy of Holies could not be made fully manifest”. That tabernacle was destroyed and no longer stood after 70 AD.

So I digress, after the 67-70Ad Judgment / “days of vengeance” of Luke 21:22 and Isaiah 61:2 and subsequent destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, Daniel 9:26. The Holy of Holies was made manifest in heaven and all believers in the Messiah are resurrected and reign as kings and priests with Jesus (Revelation 20:6) after they die the 1st death (On whom the 2nd death has no power).

So again, as you know in the Age of Messiah, He offers everlasting life to those who believe (they shall die no more). But it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death, but their faith in Jesus gave them everlasting life so they won’t die the second death. Being like angels just compares us to them.
As far as angels and the 2nd death, for all we know they don’t even experience the 1st death so I don’t think we can apply all this to them. This is our redemption plan, not theirs.


QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75739932, member: 421182"]With these things in mind, which age are you and I in today? Jesus said that marriage is in "this age" (i.e., the age He was in while speaking, Luke 20:34), whereas marriage would not exist in "that age" (Luke 20:35).

A second question I have would be about the next verse, which says those in the age to come won't die, due to being like angels. If Luke 20:36 references what Revelation calls the "second death," and if people won't experience it due to being "equal to the angels," does this imply that angels are protected from the second death? If so, how is this reconciled with 2 Peter 2:4? Thanks!

And as far as Marriage happening in this age (Old Covenant Age) as per the Law of Moses. But in that age AND the resurrection of the dead”...which was the subject of the conversation...”there is no marriage or giving in marriage”...as Jesus continues..”BECAUSE they will be as the angels”...in other words, not flesh and blood, for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” we will LIVE and reign with Christ in heaven. Since Jesus’s Kingdom “is not of this world”. So the fleshly Covenant of marriage between a man and a woman does not apply. We are promised instead to be pillars in the New Jerusalem, which is His Bride. We collectively make up the City as His Bride. That is the only marriage that exists there.



QUOTE="FulfilledInHim, post: 75743328, member: 431271"]There only 2 Ages spoken of by Jesus and the apostles, and frankly also by the Law and the Prophets. The Mosaic Age of the Law, and the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. Since we are no longer in the Mosaic Age of the Age which Jesus fulfilled, we are in the Everlasting Age of the Messiah. According to Hebrews 9 it indicates, along with writings from Paul, Peter, Acts, and John, that they were living in the Last Days of the Age of that Old Mosaic Covenant. There was an overlap between 30AD to 70AD (a complete 40 year generation) of both Covenants coexisting, hence why Jesus would say in Matthew 24:34 that all will be fulfilled within that generation, and also why the Law still had to be kept by Jews such as Jesus, Paul, and (Peter: baring his personal Revelation of its fulfillment even in the food Laws) Hebrews 9:8,9 says “as long as the first tabernacle remains standing, the Holy of Holies could not be made fully manifest”. That tabernacle was destroyed and no longer stood after 70 AD.

So I digress, after the 67-70Ad Judgment / “days of vengeance” of Luke 21:22 and Isaiah 61:2 and subsequent destruction of the City and the Sanctuary, Daniel 9:26. The Holy of Holies was made manifest in heaven and all believers in the Messiah are resurrected and reign as kings and priests with Jesus (Revelation 20:6) after they die the 1st death (On whom the 2nd death has no power).

So again, as you know in the Age of Messiah, He offers everlasting life to those who believe (they shall die no more). But it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death, but their faith in Jesus gave them everlasting life so they won’t die the second death. Being like angels just compares us to them.
As far as angels and the 2nd death, for all we know they don’t even experience the 1st death so I don’t think we can apply all this to them. This is our redemption plan, not theirs.


QUOTE="Kilk1, post: 75739932, member: 421182"]With these things in mind, which age are you and I in today? Jesus said that marriage is in "this age" (i.e., the age He was in while speaking, Luke 20:34), whereas marriage would not exist in "that age" (Luke 20:35).

A second question I have would be about the next verse, which says those in the age to come won't die, due to being like angels. If Luke 20:36 references what Revelation calls the "second death," and if people won't experience it due to being "equal to the angels," does this imply that angels are protected from the second death? If so, how is this reconciled with 2 Peter 2:4? Thanks!

Okay, so you agree that there won't be marriage "because" of being like angels, i.e., not being flesh and blood. I'll probably drop that point since we seem to agree on it. However, the same is said for why they can't die anymore: "nor can they die anymore, for [i.e., "because"] they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36, emphasis and brackets mine). Would this go against your claim that "it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death"?

 

[FulfilledInHim]

Being children of the Resurrection means you will never die again. I.e. Escape the 2nd death and have everlasting life.

I am unsure what you are confused about where I stand on the subject.

Being like angels just means not flesh and blood, what Paul calls a Spiritual Body in 1Cor 15. One that dies not perish to live in a Jerusalem that is above, greater than the one that was below since the things that can be shaken were shaken and the things that remain cannot be shaken because they are eternal.

Okay, so you agree that there won't be marriage "because" of being like angels, i.e., not being flesh and blood. I'll probably drop that point since we seem to agree on it. However, the same is said for why they can't die anymore: "nor can they die anymore, for [i.e., "because"] they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection" (Luke 20:36, emphasis and brackets mine). Would this go against your claim that "it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death"?

 

[claninja]

It would've seemed contrived to assign different antecedents to "it" in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, so I'm glad that isn't your point. To make sure I understand, what are you saying the antecedent of "it" is in the chain of 1 Corinthians 15:42-44? I've assumed that everyone agrees the answer is "The body" (as supplied for clarity by the NKJV, NIV, WEB, etc. in v. 42), but just to make sure, are you saying the antecedent is something else?

After really, really digging into this, it seems that the pronoun "it" is not present in the greek of 1 corinthians 15:42-44, and therefore, the argument of what the antecedent of pronoun "it" is, doesn't seem to apply here.

"Sown" and "raised" are 3rd person singular verbs. The noun performing the action could be masculine, feminine, or neuter, but must be singular. So it seems we should be looking at what singular noun is performing the action of being "sown" and what noun is performing the action of being "raised" and if they the are same noun or different, instead of an antecedent, that is not actually in the original greek.

In your case, it seems you believe the noun, body (specifically the natural body), is performing the action of being sown AND being raised.

However, it seems to me that this contradicts Paul's statement that what is sown, is not what is raised. Therefore, I disagree with your argument, to which I will explain below.

Okay, I hope to clarify. I believe that the same body that's sown in corruption is then, in some sense, raised in incorruption.

And that is why I am confused by your position, because Paul didn't say the same body that is sown is then raised. He stated the opposite: the body that is sown, is not what is to be. What is raised is a spiritual body.

1 corinthians 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.

1 corinthians 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.

** remember, the pronoun "it" is not found in the greek of 1 corinthians 15:44. The verb "is raised" is a singular verb, so what noun is performing the action of being "raised"? More on this below.

The human analogy was to help illustrate my position, not necessarily yours.

Right, but Paul stated humans have one kind of flesh, so while we grow from infant to child to adult, this natural body is not changed to another body type. That is why I disagreed with the analogy. The nature of the resurrection, as stated by Paul, has us changing from a natural body to a spiritual body.

I don't know if Paul was referencing the endosperm in his analogy. I don't think the meaning is, that our spiritual body is dwelling within our physical body and will shed it off later. In fact, rather than shedding off something, Paul seems to think of us as being "further clothed" in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:53-54; 2 Corinthians 5:4).

I agree, I don't believe Paul was saying that our spiritual body resides within our natural body like how a seed contains an infant plant within.

IMHO, Paul was explaining that in the same manner that a seed is not what rises out of the ground when it dies and is buried, so to is it not the natural body that rises out of the ground at the resurrection.

1) "It" is sown a natural body ( 1 corinthians 15:44).

2) "It" is raised a spiritual body (1 corinthians 15:44).

3) The spiritual body that is raised is not the same as the natural body that was sown (1 corinthians 15:37).

What do you believe is the "it" in this passage? I assume we agree that the "it" is our body, but whatever "it" is, we know that 1) "it" is sown a natural body and then 2) "it" is raised a spiritual body. So it makes perfect sense to say that 3) what "it" becomes is different from what it was previously (or, more parallel to verse 37, what it is at first is different from what it shall be later).

Actually, the points connect quite well. I assume we agree that the "it" is our body. Going in the order that Paul lists the points, then, we can say that 3) "our body" is not what it shall be because 1) "our body" is sown a natural body, and then 2) "our body" is raised a spiritual body. There's certainly no contradiction here.

Now to the main point:

I would argue that is not how it should be understood.

There is no pronoun "it" in 1 corinthians 15:44. The verbs "sown" and "raised" are simply 3rd person singular verbs (he, she, or it). In fact, this verse contains 2 distinct singular, nominative, neuter nouns: natural "body" and spiritual "body". A noun in the nominative case can serve as the subject of the verb, even if it comes after the verb. Therefore, I would argue it should be understood as:

A natural body is sown. A spiritual body is raised.

So it seems to me, based on the grammar, that the natural body is performing the action of the sowing, while the spiritual body is performing that action of the raising, which would be consistent with Paul's statement in vs 37, that the body that is sown (natural body) is not the same body that is to be (spiritual body).

I would argue that if the noun, natural body, is performing the action of be being raised, this would contradict Paul's words in verses 37 and 44.

 

[claninja]

Connecting John 5:28-29 to 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3:21, I'd instead say that for them to be raised out of the tombs would include their entombed bodies being raised, paralleling Christ, the firstfruits (1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:23). When we're raised, our body will be "transformed" to be like Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21). Hence, "it" was natural when sown, but "it" will be spiritual when raised (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).

In the resurrection, something HAS to die, according to Paul's theology on the resurrection, in order to be raised to life. The resurrection, then, must be a rising from the dead.

1 corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

In Jesus' case, his natural body died, and was raised from dead.

John 20:11-13 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

Luke 24:26 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,

It stands then, that those dead coming out of the grave/dust of the earth would fit into the criteria of the resurrection of the dead.

John 5;28-29 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

1 thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

1 corinthians 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

Therefore, While I would classify the dead rising out of the dust of the earth in spiritual bodies as a "resurrection", I'm not so sure I would classify the changing/transformation of those that are alive as a resurrection.

1 corinthians 15:51-52 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

1 thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Now, is Paul referring to the dead in this passage, or those that remain alive?

Philippians 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

I see, you believe that it parallels John 5:28-29 and was fulfilled in A.D. 70, though continuing today as people die. Does this differ from a full preterist interpretation?

The full preterist would say this is fulfilled and deny any future resurrection event.

I believe this fulfilled, but don't deny the possibility of a future resurrection event. Thus I would be an extreme, almost full, preterist.

 

[Davy]

Not sure what is being asked, there is a lot of text of course. Just live life trusting God, and Jesus Christ. You wont have much to worry about then.

They're only asking a question that brings a discussion to 'further'... knowledge of the false Full Preterist leaven doctrine of men. It's about educating others here about Full Preterism, like a recruitment strategy.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

They're only asking a question that brings a discussion to 'further'... knowledge of the false Full Preterist leaven doctrine of men. It's about educating others here about Full Preterism, like a recruitment strategy.

The following well respected scholars all believed the Apostles were full preterists even though they didn't call them that.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (1877)
Romans 811-14) The Apostle now gives a reason for enforcing this and other duties upon his readers. The end of the world itself is near.
St. Paul, like the other Apostles (comp. 1Peter 4:7; Revelation 22:20, et al.), certainly believed that the Parousia, or Second Coming of Christ, was near at hand.

Meyers New Testament Commentary (1844)
Romans 8: 11-14Ἡ ΣΩΤΗΡΊΑ] the Messianic salvation, namely, in its completion, as introduced by the Parousia, which Paul, along with the whole apostolical church, regarded as near, always drawing nearer, and setting in even before the decease of the generation.

MacLaren's Expositions (11 February 1826 – 5 May 1910)
Romans
LOVE AND THE DAY
SALVATION NEARER
Romans 8:11.There is no doubt, I suppose, that the Apostle, in common with the whole of the early Church, entertained more or less consistently the expectation of living to witness the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Pulpit Commentary (The Pulpit Commentary is a homiletic commentary on the Bible created during the nineteenth century under the direction of Rev. Joseph S. Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones)
Romans 8:Verses 11-14. - There is now interposed among the particular admonitions a call to watchfulness, with a view to holiness in all relations of life, on the ground that the day is at hand. There can be little, if any, doubt that the apostle had in view the second coming of Christ, which he with others supposed might be close at hand,

Vincent's Word Studies
And that knowing the time - now
Referring to the injunction of Romans 13:8. Knowing, seeing that ye know. The time (τὸν καιρόν), the particular season or juncture. Rev., season. See on Matthew 12:1. Now (ἤδη), better, already.
Our salvation (ἡμῶν ἡ σωτηρία)Others, however, and better, as Rev., construe ἡμῶν of us (salvation of us, i.e., our) with nearer, and render salvation is nearer to us. This is favored by the order of the Greek words. The other rendering would lay an unwarranted emphasis on our. The reference is apparently to the Lord's second coming, rather than to future glory.

Based on the following verses, when does the church age end?
Ephesians 3: 20Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, 21to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.

 

[Kilk1]

Being children of the Resurrection means you will never die again. I.e. Escape the 2nd death and have everlasting life.

I am unsure what you are confused about where I stand on the subject.

Being like angels just means not flesh and blood, what Paul calls a Spiritual Body in 1Cor 15. One that dies not perish to live in a Jerusalem that is above, greater than the one that was below since the things that can be shaken were shaken and the things that remain cannot be shaken because they are eternal.

I'll try to clarify. What's confusing me is this statement of yours: "But it is not because they are like angels as per why they won’t die the 2nd death, but their faith in Jesus gave them everlasting life so they won’t die the second death. Being like angels just compares us to them" (emphasis mine). Doesn't Luke 20:36 explicitly say the reason they can't "die anymore" is "for [because] they are equal to the angels ..."?

 

[Kilk1]

After really, really digging into this, it seems that the pronoun "it" is not present in the greek of 1 corinthians 15:42-44, and therefore, the argument of what the antecedent of pronoun "it" is, doesn't seem to apply here.

"Sown" and "raised" are 3rd person singular verbs. The noun performing the action could be masculine, feminine, or neuter, but must be singular. So it seems we should be looking at what singular noun is performing the action of being "sown" and what noun is performing the action of being "raised" and if they the are same noun or different, instead of an antecedent, that is not actually in the original greek.

In your case, it seems you believe the noun, body (specifically the natural body), is performing the action of being sown AND being raised.

However, it seems to me that this contradicts Paul's statement that what is sown, is not what is raised. Therefore, I disagree with your argument, to which I will explain below.




And that is why I am confused by your position, because Paul didn't say the same body that is sown is then raised. He stated the opposite: the body that is sown, is not what is to be. What is raised is a spiritual body.

1 corinthians 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.

1 corinthians 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.

** remember, the pronoun "it" is not found in the greek of 1 corinthians 15:44. The verb "is raised" is a singular verb, so what noun is performing the action of being "raised"? More on this below.



Right, but Paul stated humans have one kind of flesh, so while we grow from infant to child to adult, this natural body is not changed to another body type. That is why I disagreed with the analogy. The nature of the resurrection, as stated by Paul, has us changing from a natural body to a spiritual body.



I agree, I don't believe Paul was saying that our spiritual body resides within our natural body like how a seed contains an infant plant within.

IMHO, Paul was explaining that in the same manner that a seed is not what rises out of the ground when it dies and is buried, so to is it not the natural body that rises out of the ground at the resurrection.



Now to the main point:

I would argue that is not how it should be understood.

There is no pronoun "it" in 1 corinthians 15:44. The verbs "sown" and "raised" are simply 3rd person singular verbs (he, she, or it). In fact, this verse contains 2 distinct singular, nominative, neuter nouns: natural "body" and spiritual "body". A noun in the nominative case can serve as the subject of the verb, even if it comes after the verb. Therefore, I would argue it should be understood as:

A natural body is sown. A spiritual body is raised.

So it seems to me, based on the grammar, that the natural body is performing the action of the sowing, while the spiritual body is performing that action of the raising, which would be consistent with Paul's statement in vs 37, that the body that is sown (natural body) is not the same body that is to be (spiritual body).

I would argue that if the noun, natural body, is performing the action of be being raised, this would contradict Paul's words in verses 37 and 44.

In the resurrection, something HAS to die, according to Paul's theology on the resurrection, in order to be raised to life. The resurrection, then, must be a rising from the dead.

1 corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

In Jesus' case, his natural body died, and was raised from dead.

John 20:11-13 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

Luke 24:26 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,

It stands then, that those dead coming out of the grave/dust of the earth would fit into the criteria of the resurrection of the dead.

John 5;28-29 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Daniel 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

1 thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

1 corinthians 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

Therefore, While I would classify the dead rising out of the dust of the earth in spiritual bodies as a "resurrection", I'm not so sure I would classify the changing/transformation of those that are alive as a resurrection.

1 corinthians 15:51-52 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

1 thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

Now, is Paul referring to the dead in this passage, or those that remain alive?

Philippians 3:20-21 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.



The full preterist would say this is fulfilled and deny any future resurrection event.

I believe this fulfilled, but don't deny the possibility of a future resurrection event. Thus I would be an extreme, almost full, preterist.

Since the main focus is 1 Corinthians 15, I'll divide this post into sections based on verses from this chapter.


1 Corinthians 15:42-44

You're right that in this passage, pronouns are not explicitly present in the Greek. You're also right that verse 44's nouns are in the nominative case, and I'll concede your statement that, "A noun in the nominative case can serve as the subject of the verb, even if it comes after the verb." However, the nouns in verses 42-43 are not in the nominative case but rather are in the dative case. And while the pronouns aren't explicitly present in the Greek, they're implicitly present via the verbs, explaining why they appear in the English. (My translation, the New King James Version, doesn't even put "it" in italics due to how strongly connected it is. By contrast, it does put "The body" in italics, since that's supplied for clarity.)

The verb for "sown" (4687 speiró) means, "I sow, spread, scatter." (Greek verbs can imply a pronoun this way.) And since it's in the present passive indicative and 3rd person singular in verses 42-44, the meaning would be, "It is sown." The same goes for the verb for "raised" (1453 egeiró), which means, "(a) I wake, arouse, (b) I raise up." It's also in the present passive indicative and 3rd person singular here, so the meaning is, "It is raised." (In and of itself, the verb in this form could also be rendered, "It is awoken," but the context favors the other rendering, obviously.) Thus, taking verses 42-44 as a whole, the point stands that the same "it" that's sown is the same that's raised, a conclusion that's also consistent with Philippians 3:21, "who will transform our lowly body that it [i.e., our lowly body] may be conformed to His glorious body..."


1 Corinthians 15:37
Does this verse contradict everything above? We should be careful not to pit the passages against each other and re-interpret one to "agree with" the other. Both passages, as commonly translated, already are in agreement. If the baby/adult parallel isn't the best, here's a mythological example: If someone said a werewolf in the night is not what he shall be in the day, I'd agree. (Obviously, werewolfs aren't real, but given the definition of the term, a werewolf in the night isn't what he will be in the day.) If the same person would later say, "He goes to sleep as a ravenous wolf; he awakes as a rational man," I'd also agree. Would you say there's a contradiction?

In one sense, a werewolf in the night is not the same as a werewolf in the day; obviously, a wolf (what a werewolf is at night) and a man (what a werewolf is in the day) are different, not the same. In another sense, however the werewolf in the night is the same as the werewolf in the day since both are the same "he"; they're the same werewolf but in different forms. (And if you'd prefer to call this mythological being an "it" rather than a "he," that works just as well, if not better.)

If you can see how an individual werewolf can go to sleep as one thing and awake as a different thing but still be the same werewolf, then you can see how an individual body can be sown as one thing (e.g., "a natural body," "in weakness," etc.) and be raised as a different thing ("a spiritual body," "in power," etc.) but still be the same body.


1 Corinthians 15:35-36
You said of verse 36, "In the resurrection, something HAS to die, according to Paul's theology..." However, this is talking about seeds and plants, not necessarily bodies, as verse 37 shows. (Now the parallel is with bodies, of course, but hear me out.) Paul's point here isn't that bodies must die in order to be raised, but that death doesn't stop resurrection, as could be objected. Someone would ask how it's possible for something dead to rise ("How are the dead raised up?" [1 Corinthians 15:35]). Paul answers this argument in verse 36 by calling the hypothetical objector foolish. Even the grain one sows isn't made alive unless it dies, and yet they couldn't see that what dies can be made alive! So obviously, Paul argues, if death doesn't stop a grain from being made alive (since it actually has to die first), why would death stop God from giving life to us (or more specifically in verses 42-44, our bodies)?

Since Paul's just discussing the possibility of the dead being made alive in verses 35-36, we'd have to go elsewhere to determine if the living experience the same. Verses 51-52 present both the dead (those who "sleep") and the living as being changed "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." In this section, the change is not for dead bodies to revive per se, but for "corruptible" bodies, subject to corruption, to "put on immortality" (v. 53), no longer being subject to corruption. Whether it's already corrupted (i.e., dead) or still in the process of corrupting, regardless, our body is "corruptible" but will be transformed into an incorruptible body, Paul foretells.

In summary, our body is sown in corruption and in its present state will die. However, it can be raised as something different, an incorruptible body that will not die. The living and the dead "shall all be changed" (vv. 51-52) so that "this corruptible" (i.e., our natural body) can "put on incorruption" (v. 53).