Flesh and Blood or Spirit? On the Resurrection: the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body

"And so it is written, 'The first man Adam became a living being.' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.
The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.
As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

But is it a transformation from flesh and blood to ethereal? No.
Not according to the fact that the metaphors were to physical things, yet physical things that transform. Some would be tempted to conclude that the physical things transform into non-physical things-even thought this would be a non-sequitur from the metaphors. Then why would they come to such conclusions? Perhaps there is good reason; let us continue with the text,

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
Thus, this would lead one to believe that the physical must become ethereal-but this conclusion would force us to deny the immediate, the greater and the historical context by relying on a selective statement: actually, a half of a verse.

The whole verse, the thought, is this,
"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."
Firstly, there was no distinction between physical and non-physical and so when Paul previously mentioned corruption and incorruption, as noted above, he was not making any such distinction. In fact, he notes that it is the body that is "sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption."
Thus, when he now states "that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" he is not changing the tune of that which he has been describing all along since "nor does corruption inherit incorruption" was in reference to the body.
But is not the "flesh and blood" that "cannot inherit the kingdom of God" the body?

Take a moment to note how slowly, diligently and carefully we must be in reading, considering, musing on the text. We must do this in order to not conclude that there are contradictions where there are none, in order to not come to, or jump to, conclusions based on partial, sometimes conveniently self-serving, readings of segments, in order to understand a text for what it is telling to us rather than attempting to read something into it, etc.

The text continues,
"Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed."
Recall that we went from physical / physical metaphors to metaphors of the transformation of the physical.

"in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption…"
Again, corruption and incorruption were in reference to the body. But what then is the transformation?

"…and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?'
The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord."

Thus, this was about mortal versus immortal or the mortal transforming into the immortal and not about the physical versus, or transforming into, the non-physical.

But what does Paul state specifically about the resurrection of Jesus? How did he understand it? Paul's epistles represent some of the earliest accounts of Jesus and the statement he makes in 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 is perhaps the earliest record and alludes to an even earlier account which was told to him.

"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received:
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time."

"He was buried, and that He rose again…He was seen"

What was buried?

A physical body not a spirit.

What rose again?

A physical body not a spirit.

What was seen?

As I have provided numerous texts as evidence: it was a physical body not a spirit (see here and here).

Yet, note that Paul correlates Jesus' appearance to the apostles (when He was "seen") to Jesus' appearance to himself (when He was "seen"). What was Jesus' appearance to Paul like? We do not really know. Or do we? "No and yes," appears to be the answer.

The relevant aspects of the texts in which the event is described are as follows:

"there shined round about him a light from heaven…and heard a voice saying" (Acts 9:3-4).

"there shone from heaven a great light round about me…and heard a voice" (Acts 22:6-7).

"a light from heaven…I heard a voice" (Acts 26:6-7).

We are not made privy to what it was that Paul saw which may be due to the fact that he "could not see for the glory of that light" (Acts 22:11) so that, afterwards, when "Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one" (Acts 9:8).
Paul stated that Jesus "was seen by me" and Jesus stated that He appeared to Paul ("I have appeared to you" Acts 26:16). Yet, we have no actual description of the vision except for the mention of light. Perhaps Paul initially saw Jesus and was subsequently blinded by the light.

It seems reasonable to correlate this appearance to the event known as the transfiguration when Jesus "was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light" (see Matthew 17; Mark 9 and Luke 9). Yet, Jesus was physically present and the transfiguration which appears to have been a foretaste of the eventual transformation.

Since we have no clear indication of what Paul saw we must hearken back to his statement about Jesus having been "seen by Cephas, then by the twelve…by over five hundred…by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also." Since we know that those who saw Jesus previously saw the physically resurrected Jesus, as I have made abundantly clear here and here, we can know that sans details; Paul saw the physically resurrected Jesus.

Recap:
We noted that there are biblical reference to the spirit, the body and the spiritual body.

We noted metaphorical correlations between things that were all physical things, yet different and that did not draw any distinction between physical and non-physical.

We noted that "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
If this had read as "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirit. There is a natural body, and there is a spirit" we may draw alternate conclusions.
Yet, we noted the key point: they are both bodies.

Lastly, we noted that while we have no detailed description of what Paul saw on the Damascus road his likening his experience with that of the other who had seen Jesus after the resurrection logically and contextually leads us to the conclusion that Jesus resurrected physically, that this was Paul's view and that this was the early Christian view.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself.
Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have
flesh and bones as you see I have"
-Luke 24:39

~~~~~~~~~~~~