I had a few dreams when I was six of places, people, details, names, wars, architecture, methods that all came up documented in real history. This was one and I was specifically calling these people cannibals, at six years old, in 1993, no internet for me then.

We dont get recycled

No, it's not plain and simple. Nothing in that claim has to entail reincarnation, it simply indicates how the resurrection of the body can happen even if a person doesn't get back all their same particles.

But that's reincarnation, Backward Medievalist.

Delicious, eh? ;) Thank you for reading my article, and for the book recommendation.

But then, what about those who died in the sea? Bodies decay fast in the sea, even the bones.

I think we must take into account the fact that dogmas, without being denied, tend to evolve through time: it happened with revelation, and somehow ti was announced when Jesus claimed the Spirit would come and explain everything couldn'd be understood at once. I don't think that we really need to defend too much the "form" of dogmas. It was even said that "spiritual bodies" was sort of a contradiction. I can see the logic there, but I -with all due respect- consider ti too much attached to specific words. And, "every day words" applied to extraordinary notions (yes, is a twinkle to the site. No hard feelings).

Also, I think we must consider that Christianism is much more a religion of PERSONS than of BODIES. Human persons have material bodies, no question there; but matter, without being bad, is not fully required for persons, like the divine persons in the Trinity, or the angels.

And, talking about angels, didn't Jesus said that the resurrected would be like angels in heaven? Sure, he was talking about marriage, but couldn't us think more about it?

I know it is too long, but, have we consider that, before christian speculation about the Trinity, the very notion of "person" was underdeveloped at best? Couldn't Saint Paul be using the term "body" to refer to the concept of "person", without having clarified this last term? As I said before, no one here is a person without a body.

Thanks.

The difference between the form of a building and the form of a human is that the form of the building is not subsitent. The manner of operation in a thing is its form and since a building is entirely dependent on material things for its operation then when that matter disappears then the form disappears as well.

Humans on the other hand also have an intellectual and immaterial operation. This means that the human soul is not entirely dependent on matter for its work which means that it is immaterial and subsistent. When the body dies, the form lives on.

When that soul (form) is re-united with the body, it is the same form that unifies the matter that it inheres in. So in the pre-resurrected body and the post-resurrected body the same soul (form) inheres in both instances of matter. The reason for this is that the form/soul is the unifying cause in the matter, it is what makes that thing that particular thing. Hence if the same immaterial form/soul inheres in a different bit of matter (provided it is the proper matter) then it is the same thing.

To provide a simple definition of "same" in this context, I would say that it means "possessing identical individual existence."

I think you are missing the point of Voltaire.