Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

[3 Resurrections]

As far as the men were concerned, Christ was NOT there with them untill their eyes were oepned and they knew. Yet Christ was very much there. They did not have to SEE Him in order for Him to be present, even before he "vanished", there is no reason found in the text to assume he was physically gone after they could no longer see Him. Such is purely speculation.
The text is clear. He ONLY disappeared FROM THEIR SIGHT. The text does not say "and He disappeared from the Earth" as you would need it, though you still have the insurmountable hurdle of proving Christ was incapable of such before the Cross.

.
Ummm, I think we might be miscommunicating a bit. My point is not that Christ "disappeared from the Earth". I very much believe He was still physically present on earth during those 40 days, but not always visible to everyone or even anyone. This capability of the physical becoming invisible is apparently an attribute of an eternal being (as in "the things which are not seen are eternal"). Which is why I can still claim there was an AD 70 physical coming of Christ, but not necessarily a return that was visible to all on the globe simultaneously. That "every eye shall see Him" clause in Rev. 1:7 was specifically limited to "those who pierced Him".

As for the glory which the Lord had with God in heaven even before his incarnation, no argument there. As the second being in the Trinity, this glory had never been absent from Him. It was Christ's incarnate form given to Him on earth that had to pass through death to become glorified, such that His form would never be capable of dying again. A seed does not grow unless it first dies one time.

John was very much familiar with that glorified form of Christ, because he said of the disciples that "we beheld His glory," (John 1:14) Which variety of glory was that? "The glory as of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth." It was Christ's resurrection day when He was "begotten" of the Father. "This day have I begotten thee" in Psalms 2:7 was spoken about Christ's first, resurrection-day ascension, according to Paul in Acts 13:33. Christ did not have to wait those 40 days until the glorification of His body had taken place.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The 6 kings in Rev. 17 are a good example, as there werer more than 5 rulers of Rome before Domitian, and more than 8 after him. So, the "kings" mentiones couldn't all be rulers of Rome.

You're right, those 8 "kings" were not the rulers of Rome; they were the "rulers of the Jews" - aka the high priests. And only a particular set of high priests - those 8 members of the house of Annas who hated and conspired against Christ, and well deserved being tossed into a Lake of Fire for planning His crucifixion.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

If you have no problem with the idea of the atoms of a person's body being "recycled over and over again", then you should have no issue with each believer's body being recycled into its own body once more. If John the Baptist said that God could make children of Abraham from the rocks of the River Jordan, then He has no difficulty in determining which atoms taken from the ground belong in which person's body. "Known unto God are all His works.

Now all you have to do is show me the scripture that says he will again gather us from the dust of the ground...

This part of the story is true, but fortunately for the saints, that is not the end of the story. We have been given the "earnest" of the Spirit while in this life as a down-payment promise of the future "redemption of our body", whether it is scattered into the four winds or not.

Yes, the redemption of our(plural) body(singular).

Of course it's true that collectively the believers are called the "body of Christ" in one sense. But that doesn't get rid of the fact that Paul said that in comparison to the resurrection process, God has given to each "seed" its own body.

This is the imperishable spiritual seed that gives rise to the imperishable spiritual body.
1 Peter 1: 23since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; 24for

“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
25but the word of the Lord remains forever.”

1 Corinthians 15:42So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

We are told that we should glorify God in our body and in our spirit, which both belong to God because "we are bought with a price". The purchased body in this 1 Cor. 6:20 context is the flesh and bones body that each individual believer has. Since our individual bodies are Christ's purchased possession, we have no business using them to commit fornication or other sinful acts, as Paul told the Corinthians. God cares what we do with our physical bodies while in this life, and He also cares enough about them after death to change them into an incorruptible state.

That's why the analogy is between a tent and a building. One is transient and temporary and the other is built on the rock and is permanent. "That which is seen is temporary and that which is unseen is eternal."

I don't think you are following my line of logic on this point. I didn't say Christ was with the disciples in John 7. That is immaterial to the connection I am making between the two texts. I am using the John 7 text to prove when Jesus was given a glorified body, which would be PRIOR to the Holy Ghost being given to indwell the disciples. And that happened for the first time on the first day of the week on Christ's resurrection day at evening - not later at Pentecost.

Where does it say "glorified body"?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be stating that Jesus was not glorified until Pentecost? This misses the mark by a long shot. We have Daniel 7 giving the prophecy of the newly-resurrected Christ being brought before the Ancient of Days and given glory and dominion, and a kingdom, etc.. This was Christ's resurrection-day ascension that this Daniel 7 passage was written about - not His ascension 40 days later.

You're claiming an unheard of 2 ascensions. Absolutely disagree.
Luke 24:
. 49And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

The Ascension

50And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53and were continually in the temple praising God.
Acts 11: 15As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’

We also have Christ giving a scripture lesson to the two on the road to Emmaus that first day of the week, when He asked them "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to have entered into His glory?" In this text, Christ was speaking of His glorification as a direct follow-up to His crucifixion sufferings. He was also speaking of His glorification in that text in the past tense at that point, as an already-accomplished act.

Here's the same word "enter" with the aorist infinitive active Greek Concordance: εἰσελθεῖν (eiselthein) -- 36 Occurrences

Fortunately, God didn't classify the subject of the resurrection as one of the "secret things". Indeed, Hebrews called the doctrine of "the resurrection of the dead" one of the foundational, basic things that were considered "the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The believers were to progress beyond that basic knowledge of doctrine, and go on unto perfection (Hebrews 6:1-2). Christ gave us the clear example of the 144,000 First-fruits saints resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53. These were raised from the dead to give the early church a visual, tangible demonstration of what every believer could expect to inherit in a resurrection of their own body.

Then you should have no problem describing the spiritual body with clear scripture to validate your belief of it not being a secret.
Christ alone is the first fruits. Their bodies were raised as was Lazarus and we don't know what happened to them afterwards. You can speculate all you want though.

 

[claninja]

It seems that you guys are debating over exactly when Jesus's body was glorified? And I think you're saying you believe it wasn't glorified yet right after His resurrection, right? I would agree with that. I think it was glorified in heaven when He ascended there 40 days after His resurrection. Otherwise, the following passage would not make sense:

1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

John had obviously already seen Jesus after His resurrection before writing that. So, if Jesus's body was already glorified immediately after His resurrection then John would have already seen Him as He is. But, he described seeing Jesus as He is (presumably referring to seeing His glorified body) as a future hope that would occur when He appears, at which time we too will have glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:50-54).

agreed, and to further this, Jesus had to be glorified first before the spirit Was sent

John 7:39 He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given,e because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

and the spirit would not be sent until Christ went to the Father:

John 16:5-8 Now, however, I am going to Him who sent Me; yet none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6Instead, your hearts are filled with sorrow because I have told you these things. 7But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocatea will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

therefore, the glorification would occur when Christ ascended to the Father

 

[3 Resurrections]

Now all you have to do is show me the scripture that says he will again gather us from the dust of the ground...

Sure...Isaiah 26:19, Job 14:10-15 for starters... Got my favorite calico cat wallowing all over my keyboard doing head butts, so I'm a bit distracted, sorry.

43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

The common denominator in all of this is whatever "IT" is. The very same "IT" goes from being in one condition into another condition with each transition listed in this text, resulting in "IT" becoming what Paul called a "spiritual body".

That's why the analogy is between a tent and a building. One is transient and temporary and the other is built on the rock and is permanent. "That which is seen is temporary and that which is unseen is eternal

Yet what is unseen is not necessarily something non-physical; it just needs to have the option of invisibility to qualify as eternal. For Christ's flesh-and-bones resurrected body was able to switch back and forth from visible to invisible at will. If you yourself are not really gung-ho about receiving a physical body in the final resurrection, I guess you would have the option of remaining invisible for all eternity if you wished.

You're claiming an unheard of 2 ascensions. Absolutely disagree.

You might disagree with this point, but I assure you, it is certainly not an "unheard of" idea. Many before me have recognized the first resurrection-day ascension in John 20:17 that Jesus said he was going to do while Mary went and told the disciples the message He gave her to pass on to them. Christ also referred to His resurrection-day ascension in John 16:16-22 and John 16:28.

Christ alone is the first fruits. Their bodies were raised as was Lazarus and we don't know what happened to them afterwards.

No, Christ was not alone as the "First-fruits". The example back in the OT was of a sheaf handful of first-fruits barley grain offered along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). There were 144,000 "First-fruits" raised from the dead that same day Christ arose. However, Christ was unique among all those 144,000 First-fruits in being called the "First-born" and the "First-begotten", because He was absolutely the first bodily-resurrected human to appear in heaven and stand before the Ancient of Days in that resurrected human form. This fulfilled the Psalms 2:7 prophecy when God would say "This day have I begotten thee." And Paul interpreted that text as being fulfilled in Christ's resurrection-day ascension in Acts 13:33-34. The rest of the "First-fruits" remained on earth for a time and did not ascend with Christ.

You may think we do not have any information on what happened to them (which would be incorrect), but at least we do know what DIDN'T happen to them. They never died again. That's not possible for a resurrected saint, because it is appointed unto men ONCE to die - not twice (Hebrews 9:27-28).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

agreed, and to further this, Jesus had to be glorified first before the spirit Was sent

John 7:39 He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given,e because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

and the spirit would not be sent until Christ went to the Father:

John 16:5-8 Now, however, I am going to Him who sent Me; yet none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6Instead, your hearts are filled with sorrow because I have told you these things. 7But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocatea will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

therefore, the glorification would occur when Christ ascended to the Father

I agree with that. I did have that in mind, also, but just didn't mention it.

 

[claninja]

The common denominator in all of this is whatever "IT" is. The very same "IT" goes from being in one condition into another condition with each transition listed in this text, resulting in "IT" becoming what Paul called a "spiritual body".

There is no “it” in the original Greek of 2 Corinthians 15: 43-44. That is supplied by English translation.

The verbs sown and raised are passive/middle forms. In other words, the subject is receiving the action and or benefit of the verb.

What subject receives the action of being sown and what subject receives the action of being raised and are they the same subject? I would argue, no, they are not the same based on:

1.) Paul states the body that is sown is not the body that will be; there are earthly bodies and heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15:37-40). This clearly demonstrates that the resurrected body is not the same body as the one that returned to the dust of the earth.

2.) 1 Corinthians 15:44 contains 2 different subjects (nominative case Greek nouns): natural body and spiritual body. Therefore I would argue what receives the action of being sown is the natural body and what receives the action of being raised is the spiritual body.

 

[robycop3]

You're right, those 8 "kings" were not the rulers of Rome; they were the "rulers of the Jews" - aka the high priests. And only a particular set of high priests - those 8 members of the house of Annas who hated and conspired against Christ, and well deserved being tossed into a Lake of Fire for planning His crucifixion.

Wrong. They're kingdoms.

 

[robycop3]

Well, that's not a criteria you curently use for ANY of the prophesies that you already believe have been fulfilled, so.....

History PROVES they;ve been fulfilled, but the eschatological events are absent from history, since they haven't yet occurred.

 

[Hammster]

History PROVES they;ve been fulfilled, but the eschatological events are absent from history, since they haven't yet occurred.

Except for the bulk of Matt 24. And Revelation.

 

[DavidPT]

agreed, and to further this, Jesus had to be glorified first before the spirit Was sent

John 7:39 He was speaking about the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were later to receive. For the Spirit had not yet been given,e because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

and the spirit would not be sent until Christ went to the Father:

John 16:5-8 Now, however, I am going to Him who sent Me; yet none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6Instead, your hearts are filled with sorrow because I have told you these things. 7But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocatea will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

therefore, the glorification would occur when Christ ascended to the Father

And these arguments alone, where I too agree with you about, destroy some of Preterism, such as their interpretation of Matthew 24:30. That coming has Him coming in glory. And that coming is meaning after the tribulation of those days meant in Matthew 24:29 and is meaning during or after the stars fall from heaven, also recorded in that verse. I'm not implying the falling stars might be literal. I simply don't know. My point only has to do with the fact the coming recorded in verse 30 is after the falling stars or maybe during it, but certainly not prior to it.

Speaking of falling stars, if one doesn't take those literally, why are these same ones taking what is recorded in Matthew 24:15 literally, that it is literally involving the 2nd temple in the first century? Of course though, since some Amils think this entire planet literally goes up in flames during the 2nd coming, that could mean these same Amils take the falling stars literally as well. And if so, what about Revelation 6 and the mentioning of falling stars there, and how Amils typically argue, that since the book of Revelation is full of symbolism, much of it is not meant to be taken in the literal sense?

But then again, if the entire planet can literally go up in flames, why can't stars be literally falling from heaven as well? No matter how you look at it, it's never going to make sense per Amil if the entire planet literally goes up in flames like some Amils tend to believe.

 

[3 Resurrections]

What subject receives the action of being sown and what subject receives the action of being raised and are they the same subject? I would argue, no, they are not the same based on:

1.) Paul states the body that is sown is not the body that will be; there are earthly bodies and heavenly bodies (1 Corinthians 15:37-40). This clearly demonstrates that the resurrected body is not the same body as the one that returned to the dust of the earth.

I would argue they ARE the same, based on the very same verse. The resurrected body is not in the same CONDITION as it was when it was sown into the dust of the earth. That formerly natural physical body is altered into a state of power and glory in the new spiritual condition given to it.

I understood this concept as a very young child. As many of you also did for a science project, we planted beans in the sides of a mayo jar, lined with paper towels and filled with dirt so we could see what was happening to the dampened seed. That seed swelled in size, the halves of it opened, sending roots downward, and a stem upward from the cotyledon, with the halves of the seed still clinging to the sides of the stem, turning green with life. Eventually those green seed halves shriveled up by being subsumed into the stem itself, at which time they could not be seen anymore. The stored nutrients and cells within that seed did not disappear - they were used by emerging in a different shape, as something living. In other words, the seed was "swallowed up in life", just as the dead physical bodies of the saints will be in the resurrection.

 

[Douggg]

I would argue they ARE the same, based on the very same verse. The resurrected body is not in the same CONDITION as it was when it was sown into the dust of the earth. That formerly natural physical body is altered into a state of power and glory in the new spiritual condition given to it.

I understood this concept as a very young child. As many of you also did for a science project, we planted beans in the sides of a mayo jar, lined with paper towels and filled with dirt so we could see what was happening to the dampened seed. That seed swelled in size, the halves of it opened, sending roots downward, and a stem upward from the cotyledon, with the halves of the seed still clinging to the sides of the stem, turning green with life. Eventually those green seed halves shriveled up by being subsumed into the stem itself, at which time they could not be seen anymore. The stored nutrients and cells within that seed did not disappear - they were used by emerging in a different shape, as something living. In other words, the seed was "swallowed up in life", just as the dead physical bodies of the saints will be in the resurrection.

The one thing everyone here can agree on is "changed".

 

[3 Resurrections]

Right, the word is "changed" - not "exchanged" or "substituted".

 

[robycop3]

Except for the bulk of Matt 24. And Revelation.

No, they haven't, especially the Revelation. You can't show us the occurrence of those events from history.

 

[parousia70]

History PROVES they;ve been fulfilled, but the eschatological events are absent from history, since they haven't yet occurred.

Then you should be able to Prove from History that 2 Samuel 22:8-16 Literally took place, since you are on record as affirming it did.
But you can't, because the events are absent from history. Yet you believe they happened anyway, so.....

 

[Hammster]

No, they haven't, especially the Revelation. You can't show us the occurrence of those events from history.

Sure I can. We know from history that Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Sure...Isaiah 26:19, Job 14:10-15 for starters... Got my favorite calico cat wallowing all over my keyboard doing head butts, so I'm a bit distracted, sorry.

Job14 1 Man, that is born of a woman, Is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: He fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Isaiah 26:19. In antithesis to Isa 26:14, "They (Israel's foes) shall not live"; "Thy (Jehovah's) dead men (the Jews) shall live," that is, primarily, be restored, spiritually (Isa 54:1-3), civilly and nationally (Isa 26:15); whereas Thy foes shall not; ultimately, and in the fullest scope of the prophecy, restored to life literally (Eze 37:1-14; Da 12:2).
together with my dead body—rather, "my dead body," or "bodies" (the Jewish nation personified, which had been spiritually and civilly dead; or the nation, as a parent, speaking of the bodies of her children individually, see on [736]Isa 26:9, "I," "My"): Jehovah's "dead" and "my dead" are one and the same [Horsley]. However, as Jesus is the antitype to Israel (Mt 2:15), English Version gives a true sense, and one ultimately contemplated in the prophecy: Christ's dead body being raised again is the source of Jehovah's people (all, and especially believers, the spiritual Israelites) also being raised (1Co 15:20-22).

The common denominator in all of this is whatever "IT" is. The very same "IT" goes from being in one condition into another condition with each transition listed in this text, resulting in "IT" becoming what Paul called a "spiritual body".

From scripture tell us what that seed is. You say "it" is the body. So then He gives the body a body? Or is the "it" the seed that He gives a body?
37And what you sow is not the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or something else. 38But God gives it a body as He has designed, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body.

Yet what is unseen is not necessarily something non-physical; it just needs to have the option of invisibility to qualify as eternal. For Christ's flesh-and-bones resurrected body was able to switch back and forth from visible to invisible at will. If you yourself are not really gung-ho about receiving a physical body in the final resurrection, I guess you would have the option of remaining invisible for all eternity if you wished.

Then explain this, because these crystal clear verses just don't sound like flesh and bone(having shed His blood) For some reason people seem to think that Christ would remain forever in a body of flesh.
1Timothy 1:15The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. 16But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. 17To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 6:14to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.

You might disagree with this point, but I assure you, it is certainly not an "unheard of" idea. Many before me have recognized the first resurrection-day ascension in John 20:17 that Jesus said he was going to do while Mary went and told the disciples the message He gave her to pass on to them. Christ also referred to His resurrection-day ascension in John 16:16-22 and John 16:28.

This is in the same context: “And behold, I am sending [present tense] the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49).

No, Christ was not alone as the "First-fruits". The example back in the OT was of a sheaf handful of first-fruits barley grain offered along with a single he-lamb without blemish (Leviticus 23:10-12). There were 144,000 "First-fruits" raised from the dead that same day Christ arose. However, Christ was unique among all those 144,000 First-fruits in being called the "First-born" and the "First-begotten", because He was absolutely the first bodily-resurrected human to appear in heaven and stand before the Ancient of Days in that resurrected human form. This fulfilled the Psalms 2:7 prophecy when God would say "This day have I begotten thee." And Paul interpreted that text as being fulfilled in Christ's resurrection-day ascension in Acts 13:33-34. The rest of the "First-fruits" remained on earth for a time and did not ascend with Christ.

You may think we do not have any information on what happened to them (which would be incorrect), but at least we do know what DIDN'T happen to them. They never died again. That's not possible for a resurrected saint, because it is appointed unto men ONCE to die - not twice (Hebrews 9:27-28).

"fulfilled in Christ's resurrection-day ascension". It doesn't say or mean that. Mark 14: 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
Leviticus 23: 16You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the LORD. 17You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour, and they shall be baked with leaven, as firstfruits to the LORD.

Romans 8:23 And not only that, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons and daughters, the redemption of our body.

James 1:18Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

The 144,000 are virgins.
2 Corinthians 11:2I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. For I promised you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

This all happened at the same time:
Matthew 27: 50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52Also the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

Then
53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Christ is the first to be raised from the dead.

 

[claninja]

And these arguments alone, where I too agree with you about, destroy some of Preterism, such as their interpretation of Matthew 24:30. That coming has Him coming in glory. And that coming is meaning after the tribulation of those days meant in Matthew 24:29 and is meaning during or after the stars fall from heaven, also recorded in that verse. I'm not implying the falling stars might be literal. I simply don't know. My point only has to do with the fact the coming recorded in verse 30 is after the falling stars or maybe during it, but certainly not prior to it.

Speaking of falling stars, if one doesn't take those literally, why are these same ones taking what is recorded in Matthew 24:15 literally, that it is literally involving the 2nd temple in the first century? Of course though, since some Amils think this entire planet literally goes up in flames during the 2nd coming, that could mean these same Amils take the falling stars literally as well. And if so, what about Revelation 6 and the mentioning of falling stars there, and how Amils typically argue, that since the book of Revelation is full of symbolism, much of it is not meant to be taken in the literal sense?

But then again, if the entire planet can literally go up in flames, why can't stars be literally falling from heaven as well? No matter how you look at it, it's never going to make sense per Amil if the entire planet literally goes up in flames like some Amils tend to believe.

it seems to me “entering glory” or Christ’s “glorification” upon his ascension to heaven would be different than a glorified Christ coming on the clouds “with” glory and power. So I don’t really follow your argument.

 

[claninja]

I would argue they ARE the same, based on the very same verse. The resurrected body is not in the same CONDITION as it was when it was sown into the dust of the earth. That formerly natural physical body is altered into a state of power and glory in the new spiritual condition given to it.

this doesn’t really address my argument.

You said the “it” is the very same “it” throughout vs 43-44. I countered and stated “it” is not actually found in the Greek, but is added by translation.

the verbs of sown and raised are passive/middle. In other words, the subject is receiving the action of the verbs (we don’t have verbs like this that directly translate into English). There are 2 distinct subjects in vs 44: natural body (nominative case = subject) and spiritual body (nominative case = subject) The natural body is receiving the action of being sown, the spiritual body is receiving the action of being raised. it is not the natural body that is raised, nor is it the spiritual body that is sown.

My argument says nothing about a “change”: whether the natural body changes into a spiritual body. My argument was that what is raised is not what was sown. These are 2 distinct entities whether a change occurs or not. But what is clear is that our natural bodies are not raised.