Trail Blazer Ministries
Base Camp for Life: A Spiritual Journey...

The resurrection of the dead

The resurrection of the dead

I have a few preterist friends who take the resurrection as a “spiritual” resurrection and that it already has taken place. They take this view in part by viewing that Jesus already returned “spiritually” in 70ad. I do consider myself as a partial preterist though I do not suppose that I fully understand the view so in part will not address the full preterist view directly. In the discussion though I want to look at what the Bible states specifically about the “bodily” resurrection as well as look at the early church fathers view on the topic.

I start my view in Genesis.

2:15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 2:16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

Now as the story continues we find that Eve is deceived and both Adam and Eve eat of the fruit and their eyes are opened and they begin to know both good and evil. At this point in Chapter 3 they are cast out of Eden before they can eat of the Tree of Life and become immortal. If they had eaten of the Tree of Life, then they could not have been redeemed.

3:22 And the Lord God said, “Now64 that the man has become like one of us,65 knowing66 good and evil, he must not be allowed67 to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

So man who could have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Life and live forever, now will die. Most biblical scholars will point out that though man did not die physically, there was a spiritual death and separation from the Presence of God and the relationship that once was at that point now was severed. My understanding of the Preterist view is that they point out that Adam was not the first to “die” physically and that Able was the first to die physically. This is true yet what is overlooked is that Able was made in the “image” of Adam. The mortality that was now impressed on Adam was passed on to his son Able.

4:1 Now1 the man had marital relations with2 his wife Eve, and she became pregnant3 and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created4 a man just as the Lord did!”5

So instead of the dependence of the fact that Adam needed to die first man, does die as God states. Death does reign from Adam though he is not the first to die, death does take a human life and that being Able first born son of Adam.

Death begins its reign at Adam and Able is the first victim of death taking the mortal life of a human. To say that Adam needed to die first, misses that Death began in Adam and was passed on to Able. This does not mean that because Able died first, God was wrong in that the mortal body of man died the very day Adam ate of the fruit of good and evil.

Now as we press on, we see that in the Jewish view there is no doubt they believed in a physical resurrection of the dead. In fact it is considered one of the 13 principles of the Jewish faith.

Click here to read the rest of the post.

I'll be gentle with you Iggy. :)
First, if you admit to being a partial-preterist you must believe in a spiritual resurrection of the dead. You believe Christ partially raised us from the dead.

Romans 8:10-12
But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
Heirs with Christ
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

According to the preterist view, once we live with Christ, we have been made immortal. Christ fully imparted immortality to our bodies! Not partially but fully.
A silly objection to this view is "Then what do we have to look forward to?" Paul himself looked forward to be with Christ, so did King David; I don't know how our bodies will be afterdeath, they won't be disembodies spirits floating around, that's for sure.
More to come later.

In Christ,

Iggy I have some problems with how you have reached your conclusions. I'll let Jesse discuss the theological points of your essay, I would like to address your epistemological methodology.

You start out by saying, "I do consider myself as a partial preterist though I do not suppose that I fully understand the view so in part will not address the full preterist view directly." First, isn't it your duty to investigate the full preterist perspective if you admit that there might be more to it than what you currently understand? Secondly, aren't you indirectly arguing against the full preterist perspective throughout your essay even though you don't directly address it by arguing against a spiritual resurrection of the saints? If one says "that can't be true" before they first ask "how can that be true," they have openly exposed their paradigm.

In your closing paragraph you state, "There are many more examples of the early church fathers taking the view of the literal and physical resurrection. To state that these men were ignorant and missed that it happened “spiritually” in 70ad would seem to be an insult to them and to church history." So essentially you are playing the oldest trick in the book on us here? Citing church fathers that may or may not have been 100% correct all the time is a perfect setup to pull the "heretic" card if someone has a view that does not line up with popular church history! I know you wouldn't call us heretics Iggy for disagreeing with you on something, but I have seen this before in other arguments on this subject (Schwertly vs Preston).

I propose that we study what the experts have to say on both sides of the issue, whether they be early or late church fathers, in an effort to find the truth. We need this kind of consistency in how we approach all these issues. Let me quote again from Phyllis Tickle,

"Neither established human authority nor scholarly or priestly discernment alone can lead, because, being human, both are trapped in space/time and thereby prevented from a perspective of total understanding. Rather, it is how the message runs back and forth, over and about, the hubs of the network that it is tried and amended and tempered into wisdom and right action for effecting the Father’s will.”


Again, as I told Jesse on my blog we need to take a honest look at the texts as to what they state.

As far as the early church fathers, how can one toss them aside? If there is a direct discipleship from John an apostle who passed on these teachings how can one supposed that his disciples missed something as important as the second coming of Jesus? So to state that they might be wrong which can be true, is to me, not honestly engage what they state.

I am not calling you dishonest, but lay out the challenge then to show me how one who is within the life of John... walked with him... talked with him and lived past 70ad and witness the destruction of Jerusalem... yet seems to still look forward to the bodily resurrection of the believer.

Again also work out the texts I brought up... Paul seems to be very clear that we will rise in a body.

Now don't make the mistake David Pease does and assume it is the "corrupted" and "perishable" body we now have as it is plain that this body will die.

It is that we will be raised in this body in its uncorrupted and imperishable form.

Now also Paul plainly states we will be as Jesus is... is Jesus a spirit? Again deal with the text... Jesus is in a Risen Body that is glorified and so will we be. So I will not have the corrupted body with diabetes and other issues, but one that does not depend on blood... but the very life of Christ.

Ryan, I also have done some studying and still have more to do... I fully admit that. but from what I have studied so far I am far from convinced and have not truly seen or heard anyone give a convincing answer to these... they gave answers, yet they seem to skim over these as if they are not important... I hear fast talking... lots of big words and a smooth presentation... yet no real convincing arguments that deal with historical Apostolic teachings and many texts. There are some "key" texts that can be made to sound convincing, yet without looking at the fuller view of scripture we will wander out into many different errors or erroneous teachings.

Again as I told Jesse I love you guys and this is not an attack on your beliefs... I just hope to thoughtfully engage you my views.


You bring up Romans 8: 10-12 which is a great verse.

We died with Jesus... as sin did also... and in exchange for our death, we recieved His Life. This is the regeneration that begins now but needs be finished. We are not to live to the corrupted flesh we have now...

Back up and look at the fuller context of the verse.

9. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
10. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
12. Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.
13. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,
14. because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
15. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."
16. The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.
17. Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
18. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
19. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
20. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21. that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
23. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
24. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
25. But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Notice first the context is not being controlled by the "sinful nature" or the "flesh" but live by the Spirit that now indwells us.

Notice that creation is frustrated and is waiting for the sons of God to be revealed... and that will come when we have the redemption of our... bodies.

Then notice later that because we have New Life we have something to wait patiently for.

So again, our bodies will be redeemed or Paul is just talking silliness...

Love you guys!

Also, just some food for thought.

I do not put much stock in "debates" as debates are not always about facts, but about expressing one's opinion stronger than the others. To make my point here is I have heard many atheists debates who I would have to say honestly won the debate against the Christian... And for some reason I still am not an atheist... = )


I take the early church fathers very seriously, and I will not skim over verses and I'll have a strong argument for most of what you bring up. Polycarp is a great story, his character shows he was a true follower of Christ; I'll talk about him some more in the following comments.
I've already scheduled out my week with lots to do, but this is a great topic and I look forward to discussing these issues.

In Christ,


The question of the resurrection of the dead is at the very core of Christianity. I will reply to Iggy's post with several posts. The first question I will address is: When did Adam & Eve die? This is important because by understanding when they died we can determine if the death ws physical, spiritual, or even both.

Our "Protestant" Old Testament was corrupted by the Jews after 70 A.D. and by Jerome when he wrote the Vulgate. The result is the translation of Genesis 2:17 " . . .
for when you eat of it you will surely die." (NIV) This is not the proper translation of this verse, as I shall demonstrate.

The "Protestant" Old Testament is based on the "Masoretic" text. This text was begun by the Jews after 70 A.D. when they concluded that the Christian's had hi-jacked their Bible. The Old Testament that Christ and the early Christians used was not the Masoretic Hebrew text, but the Greek text known as LXX or The Septuagint. This text was made under Ptolemy when he was filling his Library at Alexandria with all the great literature of the World. I won't go into a full history here, but let me just say that by the time of Christ this version was "The Scriptures" and accounts for any discrepancies of quotes by the N.T. writers from the O.T. Jerome thought it would be best to use the "Hebrew" scriptures developed from 70 a.d. to about 800 a.d. This was a big mistake and was passed on from Jews to Catholics to "Protestants." The Orthodox Church worked for years to translate into English the Greek Orthodox Study Bible of the O.T. from Greek. This Bible was finally ublished in 2008. I personally consider this to be the gretest achievement in Biblical Text since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Here is how the Septuagint of the Orthodox Study Bible translates Genesis 2;17 ". . . for in whatever day you eat from it, you shall die by death." The difference is ". . .in whatever DAY you eat from it . . ." By this text I conclude that the "DAY" Adam & Eve ate of the forbidden fruit they died - spiritually, NOT physically.

Further proof comes by way of THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS BIBLE published in 1999 by 3 men I have personally met: Martin Abegg, Jr.,; Peter Flint; and Eugene Ulrich. Genesis 2:17 reads: ". . . for [in the day] that you eat from it you shall surely die." (4QGen).

Adam & Eve were the 1st to die, not their son, therefore it was a spiritual death. I will expand on this in my next post.

In Christ, David L. Pease


The point is not just when did Adam and Eve die, as yes there was the spiritual death that happened first. And at that point Death entered creation. Before this, there is no "death" only that man was mortal and could still and had not yet eaten of the Tree of Life. So man was created mortal, though there is the indication that man was not created to remain mortal as they had access to the Tree of Life.

Instead of the Tree of Life they chose the Tree of Good and Evil and death followed.

Death reigned from Adam until Jesus conquered the "sting" of Death and as I see scripture unfold that Death will at last be cast into the abyss.

Yet, as we still look around things still die so "Death" is still allowed for a time to have its way until the son of God are revealed.

Now Able was the first to die physically... and was so according to the Bible which fulfilled what God stated.

Gen 2: 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Now looking at the phrase "when you eat of it" has in it the idea that it is a "continual death" which is of course true. Man from the time they are born live to die, and also from the time they are born, suffer the inevitable wages of their sin which is death.

Now the real issue though to me is not whether it is spiritual or physical as it is both, but whether Paul stating we will have a body at the resurrection. Paul states it is so, so how does one disregard Paul's words... as well as the early church father who lived after 70ad who still affirmed the words of Paul as they were and did not see that all the things have already come to past... looking forward to a future literal resurrection.


Oh again it is not a matter of whether death was physical or spiritual... the point is death reigned... but show me where physically Adam or Eve were the first to die?

Death entered spiritually and manifests physically... and the first person Death had its realization in was Able.


Abel had absolutely nothing to do with "the day" I quoted from the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.
The reason I deal with the "spiritual" death is that it will be a "spiritual" resurrection with a "spiritual body." Toward the end of this study I will show there can be a physical element of the resurrection, but the ultimate resurrection is spiritual. A hint:
We are buried with a physical body and the physical body rises up, but it is the spiritual body at that moment that is eternal, not the physical body. I'll try to write part II tomorrow.

So David are you saying Able would have died in spite of the "day"... I see my view that as the Greek goes God says basically, "From today one you will continue to die." It covers both the spiritual and physical.

The point is that it was not just a spiritual death as they were denied access to the Tree of Life which took its effect in their bodies.

So the curse in its fullness is not only "spiritual" it is very physical... Women feel more pain in childbirth, men must work harder to work the ground for food... the fact the earth itself a physical thing... suffers also and we are told is groan to be released for "death and decay" just as our own bodies do now.

So the issue of "spiritual" death versus "physical" death is really irrelevant in the over all fact that we experience both and so did Adam...

Unless you are denying that Adam died physically this really is a false dichotomy that really seems to prove nothing other than Death reigned in Adam until Moses and still does. Jesus has, continues and will eventually totally overcome death proof by raising the dead physically bring all creation into Himself through Jesus.


Iggy, be patient. Short answer - "THE DAY" Adam and Eve THEY SURELY DIED & that had to be spiritual death, not physical. After eating of the fruit and being confronted there were CONSEQUENCES apart from "THe DAY" of deth (i.e.) pain in child bearing for women; working from the sweat of his brow and the earth was cursed with thistles and the serpant crawled upon its belly. I'm working on Part II of my comments. It will be coming SOON!

Back to Romans 8; your interpretation of "Creation and Body" is entirely based on a surface reading of the text.
Creation as used in Romans 8 is ktisis, and although it is used to speak of physical creation (Mark 10:6 e.g.), in the N. T., it is used also to speak of mankind, for society, (cf. Mark 16:15-- every creature; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Gal. 6:15, Colossians 1:23.
The "groaning of creation" must be traced back to its source, and that source is Isaiah 26:16-18-- the labor of birth pains, and Israel's futile attempts to bring forth righteousness under Torah.
So the groaning of creation is waiting until the passing of the old. This was fulfilled in 70ad according to Dan 12. I'll argue the Daniel 12 passage later.

Concerning Body: The question here is, what is "the body" that Paul has in mind? The word "body" in v. 23 is singular, not plural. So Paul must be referring to the corporate body and not the individual.

Here is a silly question, "If "creation" in Romans 8 is the physical creation, then, are we willing to accept that fish, deer, and bugs, will one day become "Sons of God"?

Iggy, I'm impressed at your post! I'm glad we can have a friendly discussion on this topic.

I'll speak on Job in the next post.


i think this is where I part ways with the full preterist view. I see that though 70ad fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus made... it did not mean that all the end times had come to fulfillment.

I see the groans as still in the pains of giving birth. Yet, there is still the birth to come. 70ad was the sign that the birthing pains started.

I see that the resurrection of Jesus was the conception of the new creation… that Jesus was the first fruit of it. I see that 70ad was the beginning of the birthing pains… as the destruction of Jerusalem was surely a “pain”… and now I see that God is still gathering those that will come to faith. 70ad was the end and judgment of Israel for their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. Though the gentiles started coming to Jesus before 70ad I see that after 70ad is the time of the gentiles. Isaiah 9 and Matt 4 speak of this time that the Gentiles who were living in darkness now have seen a great Light… being Jesus.

Luke 21 speaks of Jerusalem being trampled underfoot until the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. Note that I see 70ad as the coming of the time of the Gentiles until Israel became a nation again… though it is still being trampled underfoot by Gentile even now as a nation. I see that Jesus was stating not that it was totally fulfilled, rather that the generation he was talking to would see this destruction and trampling… and would continue to see it until the time of the Gentiles was ended.

Paul speaks of this more in Roman 11:25

“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”

I do not see that the full number of the Gentiles has yet been gathered as Jesus stated would begin in his prophecy concerning the destruction in 70ad. If that was so, people would not be still coming to Jesus as the “full number” would be done…

So again, we part ways in that I see that 70ad fulfilled the destruction and judgement part of Isreal… ending the sacrifitial system and ushering in the time of the Gentiles which will continue until the full number of Gentiles are gathered.

Take a bit and read Luke 21:20-33 and see what I am saying.

20. "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.
23. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
25. "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26. Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."
29. He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near.
31. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. 32. "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Now part of this prophecy I believe is concerning the Cross, resurrection and ascension. I see that the phrase “coming in a cloud” is a bit misleading as I see that it actually refers to the ascension. So at the time of Jesus death on the cross, there were signs in the sun as it was darkened and the moon and stars as well. I see that Jesus is stating that when you see the shaking it happened on the Cross and at the time of the resurrection… as both events had earthquakes happen… or as the bible states... The ground shook. I do not see that this is all sequential… I see Jesus warning of judgment and then stating the sign will be the cross, resurrection and ascension and after that, “redemption is drawing near.” The sign precede the judgment… The fig tree is a direct reference to the Cross as the fig tree represents the Tree of Life.

So I also see that Jesus is not necessarily referring to his return when he is stating that “this generation will certainly not pass away” as there is a break between the first series of events Jesus talks about and when he then gives the parable. Jesus then states that when you see the fig tree sprout leaves you will see summer is near so also that the generation will see these things happen… and that after these events the Kingdom comes. but what still needed to happen was the destruction of the temple and the end of the Gentiles.

So that generation did see Jesus die on a cross, resurrect and then rise into heaven. Then that generation saw the Holy Spirit come down on Pentecost and usher in the Kingdom on earth… later they saw the destruction of the temple… and the beginning of the time of the Gentiles… which we are still in.

Now granted this may not be the most common view of this passage, but then I seem to not see many things the same as other see them.


Iggy, of course more Gentiles will come into the Kingdom, the earth remains and many more souls are entering each day. I agree that there are better things to come in this world and the hereafter. I am not gnostic in thinking, the body and soul are important. The ever expanding Kingdom of God is here now; in full and getting better and better. Luke's Olivet discourse can not be separated from Matthew's, you will stumble all over yourself trying to dichotomize it. Once you can successfully do this, I'll change my mind.
I can't debate you, if you keep picking apart Jesus's prophesy and apply it to different times. I can't trust your exegesis!

More to come on Job.


Jesse: I can't debate you, if you keep picking apart Jesus's prophesy and apply it to different times. I can't trust your exegesis!

iggy: Now wait a minute will ya! LOL! Preterism has picked apart Jesus' prophecy and applied to different times than other views. So here I am offering a 3'rd alternative. I do not agree with the Rapture view, nor do I yet see the time of the gentiles has come to it's end. Also, I have a hard time seeing that death and Hades have been tossed into the Lake of Fire yet, as... people and things still die. In the day we are clothed in the imperishable and incorruptible I see that death will be gone.

My point is that when one looks at the passage in Luke, it plays out as the death, resurrection and ascension then the destruction of the temple. The point were the
"Left Behind" folks get confused is that the passage is most often translated as "comes in the clouds" as opposed to the alternative "appears in the clouds"...

All I am saying is that if one looks at it as appears and thinks of Jesus at His ascension... this all fits well in what Scripture teaches. Also realize that Jesus had not gone to the Cross yet... so most often He would reference things to come to include His death.

I think that this is a good alternative view and the weakest point is whether one can prove it is "comes" or "appears"...

We agree that the Kingdom is ever expanding, yet I see that started with Jesus, and was poured out on all flesh at Pentecost. I see this was the time and not 70ad that the Kingdom true was on earth.

70ad is still important as it was the sign that ushered in the time of the gentiles as I stated.

Again... look at it and it all fits.

The very generation that Jesus spoke to saw the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost, destruction of the temple and then the ushering of the time of the gentile.

So to me to hang it all on 70ad misses out that this passage.

Even in Matt 24 if one looks at it in light of Jesus talking about the signs of the Cross and Resurrection and such.. the word "coming" can mean "presence". Even if it is still "coming" the Cross, Resurrection et al were still to come.

To me the idea of lightening does not have to mean the second coming, but still can reference the first coming. Jesus spoke of the time that He was there as the "last days"...

Admittedly Matt 24 is harder to see what is going on, yet, here Jesus is not pointing to the cross,resurrection and all. Rather he is talking directly of the destruction in 70ad.

Again though it comes down to verse
"30. "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."

If read with the understanding that as John wrote what was happening in heaven (even if it is symbolic and whether it is an early date or later date as the dates would not matter) When Jesus was revealed in Heaven as the Lamb of God by the opening of the scroll, the temple was destroyed. Now again I admit I cannot show proof-text of this, yet if you read the verse this way as it can also be translated:

30. "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the Heaven, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man appearing on the clouds of the heaven, with power and great glory."

This does not mean that it is the second coming, but what was going on in "heaven". So it is not the "return" but the Coronation of Jesus as the Lamb who sits on the Throne that John talks about in Revelation 5.

Again, I see that a mistranslation exists which causes confusion by using "coming" and "sky" instead of "appear" and "heaven".

Again, I also admit I have never heard anyone else teach this. This is what I see as I look at the scripture. To me there is not much twisting or contortion needed to get this view and that it seems to hold up.


Iggy: Preterism has picked apart Jesus' prophecy and applied to different times than other views.

What do you mean? Full preterism believes 70ad was the consummation. Of course FP believe all sorts of things, many with which I don't agree with.

If you can't dichotomize Luke and Matthew's Olivet discourse, Jesus must be saying the same thing. Dispensationalists are consistent in their futurism, and preterists are consistent with their past-fulfillment.


I am also picking it apart as for as the time line... Again, I see Luke as the more organized and cleaner narrative and so use that to e apply to what is going on in the Matt narrative. Remember also that Jesus in Matt is talking to the Jews as to what will most effect them while Luke will bring out how the narrative will effect bringing in the Gentiles. So really because the two Gospel are written for different purposes and for different people groups, Matt the Jew and Luke the Jew and Gentile (I see Luke's Gospel is the story to the gentile in how they are included since he is closely associated with Paul)

Yet, to me though there are a few light difference, over all they still fit together as I am stating.


Ward Fenley and New Creation Ministries have released a series of videos on the Resurrection of the Dead:


Just listened to the first of the series and see some things I disagree with... (surprise!) LOL!

No doubt it is a spiritual body... and Jesus had not be yet glorified... yet, his body was dependant on the Spirit instead of Blood...

Now when the others were raised (Lazarus) in the NT and even the accounts of some raised from the dead in the OT, they came back to life, but still dependant on blood for life.

"1 Cor 15: 50. I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

The contrast is what Jesus stated about his own body:

"Luke 24: 39. Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

So as much as we don't know of our spiritual bodies, we do know that "Flesh and blood" will not inherit the Kingdom, yet Flesh and bone is what Jesus was raised with.

Interestingly Rev 20 speaks of the sea giving up its dead... the word dead means... corpse. So the idea of the physical corpse being raised up again is even part of the idea John is presenting in part of the resurrection.

Now, does this mean that if I am beheaded that I will have to carry my head around in "Heaven"? No, I see that we are regenerated... or renewed... and though Jesus still had the scars he may not still when he was glorified... or if he still does they serve to remind us what he did for us.

I see that we will be raised to life spiritually... that is not a question to me.

Again it is like the current heavens and earth... in a way it will be destroyed, in its corrupted stated, yet it will be restored to its original glory and then some. I see that true with us... we will be restored to our original glory, yet more so... as we are glorified in Christ.

Again, I have only listened to the first of the series so I don't know where he is heading... I hope to get to some of the others.

I also miss you all greatly!


I just read Don Preston's article on the Resurrection of the dead. I suggest everybody read his article at: and go to articles and then to resurrection. Look for Don't article on the Resurrection and read it carefully. Please notice his reference to Romans 6, as I believe it is ONLY in baptism that we are resurrected - water & Spirit. The only way the body is resurrected is that it literally comes up out of the watery grave of baptism. The Jews teach that when you are IMMERSED in the mikvah you hold your breath and they take that as a moment of death. When your body comes up out of the watery grave you take a breath like a new born babe. Then the Holy Spirit is given to you as the "gift of the Holy Spirit" (acts 2:38) and you are now Spiritually "Born Again" and resurrected in a spiritual body. When you leave this earthly body you are "absent from the body", but, you are now "present with the Lord" as He meets you in the air to take you to your mansion He has prepared for you.

You want to be resurrected to eternal life - BE BAPTIZED (immersed in water) - why do you cherish the flesh and bones? The first liar, Satan, also called by Jesus as the "father of liars" said to Adam and Eve " shall not surely die." Now the lie perpetrated is "You don't NEED to be baptized, did Paul say to be baptized, did John say you are born again of water & the Spirit, did Jesus command to baptize?" I call the congregations that say you don't have to be baptized SPIRITUAL ABORTION CLINICS! "Faith Alone" is the doctrine of Spiritual Abortion! I don't want to be harsh, but I am compelled by the Scriptures to call all of you to repentance, confession and baptism.
In Christ's Love,


P.S. Who will debate me?

I'm trying to evaluate my teaching methods. Should I change my methods completely, or just seek to improve the spirit of my approach? Am I too driven? Can God use me the way I am? Is my style useful at all? Is there a right approach to teaching, or does God use our different personalities so that where I fail God can use another personality to pick up where I fail? I feel very depressed and sorrowful tonight. I can't even image how Christ felt, and does feel, when we fail.
I really do need your prayers.
In Christ's love,

*Sigh* Alright, I'll wade into this debate...

"why do you cherish the flesh and bones?"

Let me turn that question around, David. Why did God create the flesh and bones? Was God mistaken when he made a physical, fleshly, material universe?

BTW; I don't think there's anything wrong with your teaching style. You bring a lot of character to the discussion, and I think that's great! I wish more Christians could be authentic in their presentation of the gospel, rather than wandering into bland political correctness and dated platitudes.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:50, I think context is important here: 50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 55"Where, O death, is your victory?

It appears to me that Paul is drawing a distinction between the present, unregenerate state of the body, and the future, glorified state of the body. We have to connect "flesh and blood" with the word "perishable"; perishable flesh and blood will not inherit an imperishable, eternal kingdom. He then goes on to say that when Christ returns (*cough*) we will all be changed or transformed, as we are clothed with immortality. There is nothing to suggest that this is not a physical event.

Michael, thank you for the encouragement and kind words. I urged everybody to go to Don Preston's site:
and read his articles on the resurrection of the dead. Concerning the "flesh" body he has written an article entitled "Putting off the Flesh" - it is exactly what I believe and have been trying to teach, so please read it.
The amillenial view that the "traditional" Church of Christ takes is that the Old Law passed away at the cross. Those of us who are full preterests realize this was not so. If you read Hebrews you should not miss this, but some how they do. The Old Law did not pass away until 70 a.d. with the destruction of the Temple and the "elements" of Heaven and Earth.
I want to quote Don Preston from his article on "Putting off the Flesh" for you all to consider:
"The modern expectation of a revivication of physical bodies is not consistent with the Biblical doctrine of resurrection. Paul, more than any writer speaks of the removal of the body of death and of flesh. He speaks of putting off the image of Adam and putting on the image of Christ. Yet Paul never has biological life and death in mind in his eschatological expectations. He speaks of man as he stands in Covenant relationship to God. He anticipated the consummation of God's Scheme of Redemption when Christ would finally put aside the Old Covenant of Death and perfect his New World of Life in Christ.
Christ has perfected his work by destroying the works of Satan, (1 John 3:8), and destroying him who had the power of death, (Hebrews 2:14f). Because of this, man, by faith can truly put off the body of flesh. Resurrection life is a reality for those 'buried with him by baptism' because it is there that the believer is also 'raised with him by faith in the operation of God' (Colossians 2:12). Christ gives life. In him we put off the body of flesh and walk in the spirit. He has conqured death for us: 'Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift!" (2 Corinthians 9:15).

A final note: Michael, it would be great to have you come over some time for our meeting at Wild Joe's on Thursday mornings at 7 a.m. If you like you would be welcome to stay at my house on a Wednesday night.
In Christ, David

Huh? Are you talking to me or a different Michael??

Ooops - wrong Michael. I was not thinking clearly. See you Thursday.

Recent Comments