Replies

Up until the late 1800s all professing Christians believed in the physical resurrection of Christ...

1 Co 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....
1 Co 15:46 However, the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, then the spiritual.
1 Co 15:47 The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven....
1 Co 15:50 Now this is what I am saying, brothers and sisters: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.[2]

This passage seems to contradict your "historical record." Although I know that what you said is true, most Christians do believe in the physical resurrection. How then, to reconcile the apparent contradiction? Furthermore, since the original subject of this discussion is Christian unity, who shall be the final authority to settle the differences of opinion?

If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, 'Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;' and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), 'He was taken up into heaven while they beheld,' as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works."

Justin Martyr,On the Resurrestion,9(ante A.D. 165),in ANF,I:298

How then, to reconcile the apparent contradiction?

There is none. The resurrected flesh is glorified and imperishable. We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed.

Furthermore, since the original subject of this discussion is Christian unity, who shall be the final authority to settle the differences of opinion?

As always, the vicar Christ left behind as His deputy - the heir of Peter.

Failing this and falling back upon reason alone, then what C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity."

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable

There is no contradiction.

Christ was in His glorified supernatural body that is not subject to age or decay which is the type you would have to have to live in eternity.

We will have the same type of glorified body.

He was able to enter into a closed room and exit to appear and disappear instantly and to travel at apparently at the speed of thought.

Yet He could be physically touched and consume food. If you noticed He said His body was flesh and bone not flesh and blood. He poured out His blood on the cross for our sins. Amen

Luk 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

Perhaps if you had posted it all it would have been easier understood

1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

This passage seems to contradict your "historical record." Although I know that what you said is true, most Christians do believe in the physical resurrection. How then, to reconcile the apparent contradiction? Furthermore, since the original subject of this discussion is Christian unity, who shall be the final authority to settle the differences of opinion?

When Paul refers to "flesh," he means sinful nature. This is the pattern in all his letters. Stop purposefully misinterpreting.

You are fundamentally misreading these verses. Jesus's resurrection was bodily. The Bible is very clear. Jesus was without sin, therefore he can be resurrected bodily and inherit all things. Christians will all die, and our bodies, born in sin, will be put in the ground. Our spirits will go to heaven. But one day God will give us new bodies that are not subject to Adam's curse. These we will live in forever.