Sam, I’m confused. I’m glad you think you’ve had a break through but the statement below seems a bit muddled. You write,
What is resurrection of the dead if resurrection were “in Adam”? Clearly, it means standing again after death in the same body one recieved in Adam. What is being born in Adam? Clearly, we discussed in this series creationism and traducianism. The soul and body come from the fleshly act of coitus (traducianism). So, what is being born in Christ mean? You get the same body from the SPIRIT. A spiritual body. You become a member of His body. What about resurrection? How would that be a standing again in the body we received from Adam? But that is precisely what Traditionalism never consistently carried through in the comparison between Adam and Christ. Wouldn’t resurrection in Christ be a STANDING AGAIN IN THE BODY OF OUR MAKER, CHRIST? And, clearly, that is a SPIRITUAL BODY. See, the comarison for Paul is one of “natural” and “spiritual.” The Greek word is “psuchikos” (we get “physical” from this). For Paul, this comparison carries all the way through in terms of the “spiritual” (that which is of the Spirit – heavenly, invisible reality).
http://thereignofchrist.com/gordon-h-clark-the-biblical-definition-of-man-part-ix-b/
Allow me to make a few observations regarding the above statement and then ask a couple of questions. I understand you are required based on your preconceived paradigm to argue the resurrection of the dead does not entail a material body. Therefore, you seem to be suggesting the material body of man is what we get from Adam and therefore if the self-same body is raised that means the resurrection of the dead would be in Adam. You are basing this on the distinction the Apostle Paul draws between the two federal heads of humanity, Adam as the federal head of the entire humanity and Jesus Christ as the federal head of the new humanity created in Christ. Your argument seems to head in the direction if the self-same body is raised that resurrection would be in Adam. If this is your point, then how do you get around the fact Jesus Christ was raised with his self-same body he got from Adam? Are you suggesting Easter meant Jesus Christ was raised in Adam?
I’m not sure about your understanding of the Greek, isn’t the basis for the word “physical” a root of the term in question? I think the word you are discussing means “soulish”. If it is, how do you get “physical” out of a “soulish” concept in this context? In chapter 2 of the 1 Corinthians the term clearly isn’t used to distinguish physical aspects of two classes of people. You may want to consider D.A. Carson’s comments regarding semantic anachronisms in his book Exegetical Fallacies on page 33. N.T. Wright notes, “In fact, if Paul had wanted to find a word for non-physical, psychikos (which could literally be translated as ‘soulish’) would itself have been a possible option. (The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright, Fortress Press, pg 351). Are you suggesting the body that is sown is non-physical?
I’m not sure about “traditionalism” I’m more interested in what the text actually states and the text doesn’t seem to support your assertions or conclusions.
P.S. That blog you posted at preterismdebate on the Old Covenant, that was really good.
