We've already examined most of Jim's arguments against Jesus' having been raised as a (glorified) Human being and found them wanting, and what is more, overwhelmed by the positive arguments for that position. Still, it might be fun to address two (even weaker, in my opinion) arguments he gives (see here).

He quotes the Pope, who in part says:

What's the problem here? Jim say:

So Jim thinks that the view that Jesus' Flesh did not see corruption implies that he didn't sacrifice his life? How? Because he got it back? That doesn't follow. One might as well say that the Christian walk is not a life of self-sacrifice because we get so much more back in the end, and even now. Indeed, Scripture makes it plain that death couldn't hold him, and so it follows that what he lost he took up again, yes, even his life as a human. But not merely mortal life, but, as a indication of things to come for those who love his appearing, he was glorified and raised up incorruptible and immortal.

He is human, right? And we're humans, right? So he is like us. It's glorified in that it is supernaturally endowed to be incorruptible, as our bodies will be in the Resurrection. That our flesh is not as his is now in ever respects doesn't erase the fact that it is like his in that both are essentially human.

The question about force fields and the concern that on its own Jesus' body, if it's human, would decay in outer space are quite puzzling to me. Does he think that to say that Christ is in heaven is to say that he's floating in in the space around the earth, waving at the astronauts in the ISS? Who has ever suggested such a notion? And what part of incorruptible does Jim not get? Is it really so strange to think that God could raise up a human being incorruptible? I don't think so; and a mere assertion contrariwise doesn't change anything.