Re: Eschatology and The Beginning

I make some responses below.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Craig Rusbult"
<craig@chem.wisc.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Eschatology and The Beginning

>I dont disagree with anything here, but is there any continuity between the
>dead body, and the risen body?
MR There is both continuity and discontinuity as inferred from the
resurrection accounts

  If
> so, what is the nature of that continuity?
MR The NT is too sparse to give detail, beyond an affirmation that this will
be the case as it was with Christ

 How much of
> the body is needed to be raised?
MR Obviously very little as if it is needed then anyone burnt to a cinder by
cremation or any other way couldnt be resurrected. Charles Hodge says this
in his Systematic Theology voliii p 770ff

 What if there is no
> body?
MR No problem. Though people worried about this in the fisrt world war when
relatives were blown to smithereens

 What characteristics of the dead body will be
> retained in the old body?
MR Difficult to answer, but will be generally reconisable

  If in fact the creation bodies
> are new creations, is there any continuity at all between the dead body
> and the raised spiritual body?

MR Yes
>
> Christ was raised exactly (in a physical sense) as he was when he died.
MR No he was not, see my previous post. This is not the teaching of the New
Testament.

 Same age, wounds were still in place, that
> sort of thing. Will all of our wonds, illnesses, deformities be present?

MR of course not
>
> Of course this raises the question of how much alike is our resurrection
> and Christ's. I have mentioned this before, that despite being called the
> firstfruits, there are significant differences between Christ's dead body
> and ours, mostly that our bodies decay (and this begins immediately) but
> Christ's body did not see decay.
MR After two days it would have begun to decay and pong a bit

>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:43:24 +0100
> "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> The two extremes on understanding the Resurrection are that it was
>> physical as we are now , and totally spiritual in which Jesus' body
>> rotted away in the tomb. These are followed by extreme Fundamentalists
>> and Liberals respectively. Iain suffered a "sermon" by Andy Mackintosh on
>> a literal physical resurrection recently (which ignored or denied 1 cor
>> 15)
>>
>> The best way to see what happened is to say that Jesus rose bodily but
>> not physically and that his body in the words of Tom Wright was
>> TRANSPHYSICAL. Consider the biblical evidence
>>
>> Gospels
>> 1. empty tomb - i.e. body gone , either stolen or risen
>> 2. seen by and spoke with many - women, disciples, including Thomas,
>> walk to Emmaus
>> 3. eat food
>> 4. passed through the doors of the upper room (John 20)
>>
>> Letters
>> Key passage 1 Cor 15
>> 1. seen by many
>> 2 rose.
>> 3. picture of earthly and spiritual body.
>>
>> All this should be clear from a bible study unless you insist of the
>> myopic lenses of Fundamentalism or Liberal theology
>>
>> We should avoid saying that Jeus rose physically as this implies the same
>> physical body .
>>
>> It is best to always refer to the bodily resurrection, and possibly use
>> Wright's term TRANSPHYSICAL
>> For a long read 700pages+ see Wright on the Resurection.
>>
>> Also not that the Resurrection is a NEW Creation, with Jesus as the first
>> of that new creation. Wright expounds thsi and also argues that 1 Cor 15
>> has Gen 1-3 lying just below surfce.
>>
>> Hope this helps
>>
>> Michael
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 20 15:42:15 2006