We shouldn’t try to “go back” and try to emulate their whole system as if real and positive development hasn’t happened, but we do need to know what it was they believed so we don’t turn theology into one or another form of ideological anachronism.

Either that or he would say “too slow” in some obscure language.

I’ve heard this view in a few places

Metahistorical/deific resurrection can give a way forward perhaps

I think we agree on the practical results, but differ slightly on the means of getting there, and the language of the eternal world as historical/temporal.

Sure. But faith itself doesn’t know what exactly it is believing in (content wise), it is Christ whom we trust, not the specifics of how it will positively all work out. Which is what I take the verse to mean.

There aren’t what?

Not sure I follow the connection there. Both of us affirm an empty tomb and the defeat of death.

It’s ok if we do.

Do hold that the eternal-deified world (which has no predation/violence at any level) should be called historical?

I have generally approached this convo from the angle of resisting gender essentialism and 1 John’s “we don’t know yet what we shall be, but we will be like Christ.”

Paul does insist on a pneumatic (and so non-fleshly) bodily resurrection, which cannot inherit the pneumatic bodily kingdom. And this isn’t a loss of anything, only the maturation of every good we have with much more than we can imagine added in.