Every day, in masses or in religious services, Christians affirm through recitation of the Apostles' Creed, the belief in the resurrection of the body as a prerequisite to achieve eternal life. I find the belief in the resurrection of the body a very strange belief. I find it strange not because I find it impossible. I find it strange because of its apparent inconsistency and impracticality within the general context of our belief in life after death.

I am using the Roman Catholic perspective here that represents the majority of Christians on the planet. I am not concerned with the minority Christian belief that, after death and until the resurrection, people go into some kind of eternal sleep, unconscious and oblivious to everything else, until one day, with the bursting of the trumpets of the Angels, consciousness suddenly returns to its long duration. corpses that later leave the graves and cemeteries to meet a returning Christ. This can be covered in a future post. For now, I am only interested in analyzing Roman Catholic belief.

So let's go back to Roman Catholic belief. Roman Catholic Christians believe in both the resurrection of the body and the existence of a life after physical death where the person's soul goes to hell, purgatory, or heaven. I find it strange that after postulating a non-physical existence after death, souls still need to return to a revived physical body here on earth in the future. For what? If a soul is already enjoying life in heaven in the company of angels and God, what is the need for it to return again and resume its former physical body?

In addition to looking like a strange event, there is the question of the practicality of reviving a decomposed physical body, something the church has been claiming has literally turned to dust. Will the original atoms and molecules of that ancient physical body at the time of resurrection suddenly separate from where they are by then and reintegrate once more so that they can revive the old physical body that the soul will re-enter?

Resurrection is easier to visualize if you are thinking of a physical body that is still intact, such as the case of Lazarus, who had been dead for only several days, for example. But how will that happen for a body that has already crumbled after centuries of being buried? What about the bodies that had been burned and burned to ashes (this is actually the reason why the church disapproves of cremation)? And what about the physical bodies that were destroyed in abnormal circumstances, like those that died at sea and whose bodies were eaten by sharks? Will God collect those molecules again, place them in one place, and then rebuild or resurrect the old physical body?

I asked this question once to a priest and he said something to the effect that the resurrected body will actually be a different body that has supernatural qualities like what the resurrected Jesus body had, for example, being able to disappear at will and power Pass through solid walls. Granting that this is so, then what will actually happen in the so-called "resurrection" will not really be the resurrection, but simply the creation of a new physical body for the disembodied souls in heaven so that they can resume life on earth again. Resurrection is mislabeled if it does not involve reviving an ancient body like the body of the risen Christ. Christ was resurrected after three days of burial. His body was not found anywhere in the grave due to that resurrection. The body was transformed but we have no doubt that it was the body itself that was revived.
https://smotrikino.net

Author's Bio: 

Every day, in masses or in religious services, Christians affirm through recitation of the Apostles' Creed, the belief in the resurrection of the body as a prerequisite to achieve eternal life. I find the belief in the resurrection of the body a very strange belief. I find it strange not because I find it impossible. I find it strange because of its apparent inconsistency and impracticality within the general context of our belief in life after death.