Identity of the Resurrected Body

The main question concerns the identity of the individual raised (either a person or a body) with the individual who died. Why is the resurrected individual the very same individual who died, rather than a mere replica or facsimile of the original?

...

It seems to me that the doctrine of the soul and the intermediate state between physical death and resurrection goes a long way towards solving the problem because in that case, the person never actually ceases to exist when he dies physically.

...

But while this solution suffices to guarantee personal identity, it does not solve the problem of the identity between the resurrection body and the pre-mortem body.

Quotes from Bill & Jan Craig on

Reasonable Faith, Newsletter May 2026
http://pages.reasonablefaith.org/pages/1787618/57390

William Lane Craig then speaks of the Jewish view about "bones", but forgets, what I find in St. Thomas:

others held that souls are reunited to heavenly bodies, or again to bodies subtle as the wind, as Gregory relates of a certain Bishop of Constantinople, in his exposition of Job 19:26, "In my flesh I shall see my God," etc.

Supplement, Question 79. The conditions of those who rise again, and first of their identity
Article 1. Whether in the resurrection the soul will be reunited to the same identical body?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5079.htm#article1

The Old Testament belief is, thus, not just tied to the bones, but also to the flesh.

The Fourth Council of the Lateran decreed that (Denzinger 801 / 429*) we need to believe:

venturus in fine saeculi, iudicaturus vivos et mortuos, et redditurus singulis secundum opera sua, tam reprobis quam electis: qui omnes cum suis propriis resurgent corporibus, quae nunc gestant, ut recipiant secundum opera sua, sive bona fuerint sive mala, illi cum diabolo poenam perpetuam, et isti cum Christo gloriam sempiternam.

[I translate] and He will be returning at the end of the age, to judge the quick and the dead, and be giving back to each according to his works, both reprobate and elect: who all will rise with the own bodies, which now they carry, to receive according to their works, whether good or bad, the ones with the devil the unending punishment and the others with Christ the everlasting glory

So, does St. Thomas deal with the problem in the same article? Yes:

Objection 3. Further, after death, as stated above (Supplement:78:3), the human body is dissolved into the elements. Now these elemental parts into which the human body has been dissolved do not agree with the human body dissolved into them, except in primary matter, even as any other elemental parts agree with that same body. But if the body were to be formed from those other elemental parts, it would not be described as identically the same. Therefore neither will it be the self-same body if it be restored from these parts.

Reply to Objection 3. That which is understood as though it were in matter before its form remains in matter after corruption, because when that which comes afterwards is removed that which came before may yet remain. Now, as the Commentator observes on the First Book of Physics and in De Substantia Orbis, in the matter of things subject to generation and corruption, we must presuppose undeterminate dimensions, by reason of which matter is divisible, so as to be able to receive various forms in its various parts. Wherefore after the separation of the substantial form from matter, these dimensions still remain the same: and consequently the matter existing under those dimensions, whatever form it receive, is more identified with that which was generated from it, than any other part of matter existing under any form whatever. Thus the matter that will be brought back to restore the human body will be the same as that body's previous matter.

To cut the Scholastic jargon, he's saying, even if the corpse is not identical to the body that was alive, because it's a corpse, it's more identical than any other thing, for instance than the linen the corpse is lying on or the coffin it is lying in.

Here is another article, dealing with it, and I cite the corpus:

I answer that, In this question it makes a difference whether we ask what can be done without prejudice to identity, and what will be done for the sake of congruity. As regards the first it must be observed that in man we may speak of parts in two ways: first as of the various parts of a homogeneous whole, for instance the various parts of flesh, or the various parts of bone; secondly, as of various parts of various species of a heterogeneous whole, for instance bone and flesh. Accordingly if it be said that one part of matter will return to another part of the same species, this causes no change except in the position of the parts: and change of position of parts does not change the species in homogeneous wholes: and so if the matter of one part return to another part, this is nowise prejudicial to the identity of the whole. Thus is it in the example given in the text (Sent. iv, D, 44), because a statue, after being remade, is identically the same, not as to its form, but as to its matter, in respect of which it is a particular substance, and in this way a statue is homogeneous, although it is not according to its artificial form. But if it be said that the matter of one part returns to another part of another species, it follows of necessity that there is a change not only in the position of parts, but also in their identity: yet so that the whole matter, or something belonging to the truth of human nature in one is transferred to another. but not if what was superfluous in one part is transferred to another. Now the identity of parts being taken away, the identity of the whole is removed, if we speak of essential parts, but not if we speak of accidental parts, such as hair and nails, to which apparently Augustine refers (De Civ. Dei xxii). It is thus clear how the transference of matter from one part of another destroys the identity, and how it does not.

But speaking of the congruity, it is more probable that even the parts will retain their position at the resurrection, especially as regards the essential and organic parts, although perhaps not as regards the accidental parts, such as nails and hair.

But the crux of the matter is in the previous question:

Question 78. The term "wherefrom" of the resurrection
Article 2. Whether all will rise again from ashes?**
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5078.htm#article2

And especially the following article, which I quote:

I answer that, Opinion is threefold on this point. For some say that the human body is never dissolved into its very elements; and so there always remains in the ashes a certain force besides the elements, which gives a natural inclination to the same soul. But this assertion is in contradiction with the authority of Augustine quoted above, as well as with the senses and reason: since whatever is composed of contraries can be dissolved into its component parts. Wherefore others say that these parts of the elements into which the human body is dissolved retain more light, through having been united to the soul, and for this reason have a natural inclination to human souls. But this again is nonsensical, since the parts of the elements are of the same nature and have an equal share of light and darkness. Hence we must say differently that in those ashes there is no natural inclination to resurrection, but only by the ordering of Divine providence, which decreed that those ashes should be reunited to the soul: it is on this account that those parts of the elements shall be reunited and not others.

Article 3. Whether the ashes from which the human body will be restored have any natural inclination towards the soul which will be united to them?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5078.htm#article3

So, the solution is, God's Providence keeps record and restores particles of matter. Presumably William Lane Craig believes that carbon atoms in Cain are still around as carbon atoms, nearer or further from his corpse or where it was. So, whether Abel was already raised in that Earthquake from Calvary and his tomb is empty, Cain (or if you think he repented, some other evil man from back then) still has the particles of his body on earth.

Have you ever solved a Rubik's Cube? Compare the six sides to six bodies, like half of the sons of Jacob. Whether they already rose on Good Friday or will rise, before they rose, or will have risen, presumably their constituent molecules were jumbled. Inside each and with the outside. Like the colours are jumbled on a Rubik's Cube. But God doesn't need to solve the problem by guess work, He has kept perfect track of each square of the nine squares of a colour or each molecule and each atom of each molecule of each human body.

That's part of what we mean by God being Omniscient.

Now, C. S. Lewis, once, in a book that has bad sides, said "there wouldn't be enough matter to go around" ... this is because CSL while writing this believed in Deep Time. If William Lane Craig believes in an Adam who was created 750 000 years ago, he may have the same problem.

I do not believe that, but that God created the world in 5200 or 5220 BC. Or not far off.*** So, there would be enough matter to go around. Did St. Thomas state more? Yes:

Question 77. The time and manner of the resurrection
Article 4. Whether the resurrection will happen suddenly or by degrees?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5077.htm#article4

And the problem (or one of them) is, God is not teleporting the individual parts with no time between.

Objection 4. Further, no local movement can be sudden as stated in De Sensu et Sensato vii. Now the resurrection requires local movement in the gathering of the ashes. Therefore it will not happen suddenly.

Reply to Objection 4. The gathering of the ashes which cannot be without local movement will be done by the ministry of the angels. Hence it will be in time though imperceptible on account of the facility of operation which is competent to the angels.

So, the angels will actually be gathering bits and pieces, down to the size of individual atoms, presumably, of each person to resurrect the body of. But when these have been gathered, God does the actual resurrecting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Fidelis of Sigmaringen
24.IV.2026

Sevisii, in Rhaetia, sancti Fidelis a Sigmaringa, Sacerdotis ex Ordine Minorum Capuccinorum et Martyris; qui, illuc ad praedicandam catholicam fidem missus, ibidem, ab haereticis interemptus, martyrium consummavit; et a Benedicto Decimo quarto, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relatus est.

* My source is this site: http://catho.org/9.php?d=bxw and I suppose that fat numbers are one and italics numbers another edition of Denzinger. ** Q78 A1 is beside our question, but more germaine to the debate on the Rapture. *** Jesus is born 5199 after Creation. But since He's born 752 after Rome was founded, presumably that puts Creation in 5200 BC. Again, a pre-Flood world of 2242 years is arguably a misreading of a pre-Flood world of 2262 years, Genesis 5:25 (LXX) And Mathusala lived an hundred and sixty and seven years, and begot Lamech. Should read: an hundred and eighty and seven years etc. The sixty being a contamination from info on Henoch. The Roman Martyrology has the Exodus so that Christ was born 1510 after the Exodus, if there is a readjustment to Exodus in 1446, but things before that as given, this would place Creation to 5155 BC.

Census Complaints, as Per a Video by Testify, Answers, Comparing His View with My Previous One

Nativity Narrative Revisited · Census Complaints, as Per a Video by Testify, Answers, Comparing His View with My Previous One

If you want to check Erik Manning's answer, it's on the video

Did Luke Botch the Census?
Testify | 22 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6fLnijaBWQ

Now, I've halted it to copy the list of complaints, to which I will respond.

1) There's a 10 year* gap between the timelines of Matthew and Luke;**
2) There was no census during the time of Jesus' birth;
3) Quirinius was not in charge of any earlier census;
4) Rome would have never conducted a census under a client king;
5) Nobody would have travalled to their 1000-year ancestral home to register;
6) Luke was just making stuff up to have Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill the Micheas 5:2 prophecy.***

To 1 and 6, I say, wrong. I'll return to why on 1, about the census creating the gap, and as to 6, Matthew also presupposed Jesus was born in Bethlehem, since the Holy Innocents only makes sense in that setting.

To 2 and 5, I give a modification. There was no direct tax census at the time recalled outside the Gospel, and a provincial under Rome typically wouldn't have returned to a 1000-year ancestral home to register.

To 3, I claim agnosticism. Quirinius was in Syria part time doing the functions of a governor, while the governor in title was Saturninus. Whether the earlier census was under him or Galilee had a separate set of Roman administrators, I don't know. St. Luke says the timing was the same.

To 4, I agree. The US Internal Revenue Service will not conduct a census on Puerto Rico, on Guam or in the Philippines. That was kind of the point of why Joseph chose to go to Bethlehem. Under Herod there was no Roman census. There may very well have been a census for the temple tax. Herod may very well have posed as a patriot, flirting with Essenians (whom Damien Mackey considers to have been Herodians). To me, Luke 2:5 strongly suggests St. Joseph enrolled with the Temple to pay temple tax, as a good Hebrew patriot.

Back to 5. A Roman official certainly would have preferred people to enroll in their own city. This was not automatically the city where they were residing for the moment. A citizen of Rome and of Pompeii would not have paid taxes at this point in the first place, but whatever official duties he could have that were not tied to being in Rome, he could only fulfill by being in Pompeii. While Provincials weren't citizens, Rome was used from its own backyard to citizens being so of a city state.

So, if the Roman official knew that there was no census going on in Judaea, why did he allow Joseph to leave with his fiancée?

There was another Bethlehem, and that one was in Galilee. The Roman official may have known that and thought that was the Bethlehem that Joseph meant.

Or, even supposing he knew Joseph was going to Judaea, he can have been unaware of Judaea being a vassal kingdom rather than a province. After, all, while Galilee was in a province, Herod was recognised as king there too. I'm presuming St. Joseph was only up with a centurion, not with a governor.

So, when Quirinius was later on in charge, personally being named as governor, not just stepping in, in AD 6, and a census in Judaea was held and caused a rebellion, that census was remembered, while the one in Galilee, which had sparked no rebellion, was not. And that's not the census that St. Luke is talking about. Here. (Erik Manning thinks he's briefly referencing it, with "πρώτη" translated as "before the one"). Either way, he does mention the rebellion, in Acts (thank's Erik! Also for Tacitus Annal's 3.48 confirming Quirinius had a governor like role before actually being governor.)

Now, I'll admit, I may have constructed a fake solution, because the solution of Erik Manning had already been presented to me, but as I recall, without the support in Josephus.

The solution of Erik Manning is, the census was first a census of loyalty, only later involved taxation, and then sparked a revolt. That was also the solution of a FB acquaintance known sometimes as "de Aulia" ... but the latter didn't mention this, quoting from Manning's video:

Therefore it is very [4:29] possible that the registration began in [4:32] 6 BC and there was actually a oil uh a [4:35] loyalty a oath of loyalty to Caesar uh [4:39] during this time. Josephus notes this in [4:42] antiquities, right? [ref. on screen to Ant. 17.2.4]

Now, that FB friend never gave the reference to Antiquities 17.2.4, which is a longish sub chapter or paragraph, but the reference would be here:

For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favoured by God, by whom this set of women were inveagled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees: who were in a capacity of greatly opposing Kings. A cunning sect they were; and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting, and doing mischief. Accordingly when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Cæsar, and to the King’s government; these very men did not swear: being above six thousand. (2)

So, the census when Jesus was born, in Judaea, would have involved "goodwill to Caear [Augustus] and to the King's [Herod's] goverment", which sounds like a less heavy strain on the absolute claims of God than loyalty to Caesar. At this census, Jews were not yet saying "we have no King but Caesar" ...

Again, as with taxes, the options may have been less patriotic in Galilee. So, Joseph could have still had a patriotic and law abiding motivation for preferring the census in Judaea, even if it wasn't for the temple tax.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Onesimus
16.II.2026

Romae beati Onesimi, de quo sanctus Paulus Apostolus ad Philemonem scribit; quem etiam, post sanctum Timotheum, Ephesiorum Episcopum ordinavit, praedicationisque verbum illi commisit. Ipse autem Onesimus, vinctus Romam perductus ac pro fide Christi lapidatus, primo ibidem sepultus fuit; inde ad locum ubi Episcopus fuerat ordinatus, corpus ejus delatum est.

* Copyist mistake number 1: "10 year" for "10-year"
** Copyist mistake number 2: "the timelines of Matthew and Luke" for "Matthew and Luke's timelines"
*** Copyist mistake number 3: "the Micheas 5:2 prophecy" for "the Micah 5:2 prophecy"

Did Josephus Believe Hercules Was Historic?

Let's check Antiquities.

Here is about Hercules as a false god:

BOOK VIII. Containing The Interval Of One Hundred And Sixty-Three Years.—From The Death Of David To The Death Of Ahab.
CHAPTER 5. How Solomon Built Himself A Royal Palace, Very Costly And Splendid; And How He Solved The Riddles Which Were Sent Him By Hiram.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link82HCH0005

3. When Solomon had completed all this in twenty years' time, because Hiram king of Tyre had contributed a great deal of gold, and more silver to these buildings, as also cedar wood and pine wood, he also rewarded Hiram with rich presents; corn he sent him also year by year, and wine and oil, which were the principal things that he stood in need of, because he inhabited an island, as we have already said. And besides these, he granted him certain cities of Galilee, twenty in number, that lay not far from Tyre; which, when Hiram went to, and viewed, and did not like the gift, he sent word to Solomon that he did not want such cities as they were; and after that time these cities were called the land of Cabul; which name, if it be interpreted according to the language of the Phoenicians, denotes what does not please. Moreover, the king of Tyre sent sophisms and enigmatical sayings to Solomon, and desired he would solve them, and free them from the ambiguity that was in them. Now so sagacious and understanding was Solomon, that none of these problems were too hard for him; but he conquered them all by his reasonings, and discovered their hidden meaning, and brought it to light. Menander also, one who translated the Tyrian archives out of the dialect of the Phoenicians into the Greek language, makes mention of these two kings, where he says thus: "When Abibalus was dead, his son Hiram received the kingdom from him, who, when he had lived fifty-three years, reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank in the large place, and dedicated the golden pillar which is in Jupiter's temple. He also went and cut down materials of timber out of the mountain called Libanus, for the roof of temples; and when he had pulled down the ancient temples, he both built the temple of Hercules and that of Astarte; and he first set up the temple of Hercules in the month Peritius; he also made an expedition against the Euchii, or Titii, who did not pay their tribute, and when he had subdued them to himself he returned. Under this king there was Abdemon, a very youth in age, who always conquered the difficult problems which Solomon, king of Jerusalem, commanded him to explain. Dius also makes mention of him, where he says thus: 'When Abibalus was dead, his son Hiram reigned. He raised the eastern parts of the city higher, and made the city itself larger. He also joined the temple of Jupiter, which before stood by itself, to the city, by raising a bank in the middle between them; and he adorned it with donations of gold. Moreover, he went up to Mount Libanus, and cut down materials of wood for the building of the temples.' He says also, that Solomon, who was then king of Jerusalem, sent riddles to Hiram, and desired to receive the like from him, but that he who could not solve them should pay money to them that did solve them, and that Hiram accepted the conditions; and when he was not able to solve the riddles proposed by Solomon, he paid a great deal of money for his fine; but that he afterward did solve the proposed riddles by means of Abdemon, a man of Tyre; and that Hiram proposed other riddles, which, when Solomon could not solve, he paid back a great deal of money to Hiram." This it is which Dius wrote.

Josephus is clearly buying into the narrative that Hercules in Phœnician is Baal.

But what about Hercules as a real man? Yes:

BOOK I. Containing The Interval Of Three Thousand Eight Hundred And Thirty-Three Years. — From The Creation To The Death Of Isaac.
CHAPTER 15. How The Nation Of The Troglodytes Were Derived From Abraham By Keturah.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link2HCH0015

Abraham after this married Keturah, by whom six sons were born to him, men of courage, and of sagacious minds: Zambran, and Jazar, and Madan, and Madian, and Josabak, and Sous. Now the sons of Sous were Sabathan and Dadan. The sons of Dadan were Latusim, and Assur, and Luom. The sons of Madian were Ephas, and Ophren, and Anoch, and Ebidas, and Eldas. Now, for all these sons and grandsons, Abraham contrived to settle them in colonies; and they took possession of Troglodytis, and the country of Arabia the Happy, as far as it reaches to the Red Sea. It is related of this Ophren, that he made war against Libya, and took it, and that his grandchildren, when they inhabited it, called it [from his name] Africa. And indeed Alexander Polyhistor gives his attestation to what I here say; who speaks thus: "Cleodemus the prophet, who was also called Malchus, who wrote a History of the Jews, in agreement with the History of Moses, their legislator, relates, that there were many sons born to Abraham by Keturah: nay, he names three of them, Apher, and Surim, and Japhran. That from Surim was the land of Assyria denominated; and that from the other two [Apher and Japbran] the country of Africa took its name, because these men were auxiliaries to Hercules, when he fought against Libya and Antaeus; and that Hercules married Aphra's daughter, and of her he begat a son, Diodorus; and that Sophon was his son, from whom that barbarous people called Sophacians were denominated."

So, Madian's [Midian's] son Ophren was a contemoporary of Hercules.

That places Hercules far earlier than a generation or two before the Trojan war.

I think this would have to be a different person from the one in the tomb of Tiryns, arguably at the origin of a more Greek worship of Hercules. And then, the two got confused.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
II L.D. after Christmas
4.I.2026