VM44:
The resurrection of the individual might be possible. What I am saying is that Russell's and The Watchtower's explanation of it does not hold up and offers no real hope.
Unless, of course, one actually wants a reproduced copy of oneself existing in the future!
Well, what's the alternative. You would acknowledge, I'm sure, that there's no need for the exact atoms used in the original body to be used again in the resurrected body, just as you do not contain any significant number of the atoms that constituted you when you were born. So how could you be resurrected and not be a copy? In fact, aren't you a copy already, and a rather poor one at that?
The most common way around this sort of problem (aside from the mundane and obvious one) is to posit a special ethereal something that's the real you, independent of your body that can either exist outside your body or (less commonly) be put into a new body. But this idea has at least as many problems as the physical resurrection. Without the hormones and other chemicals of my body and the exact patterns of my neurons and synapses, whatever else that ethereal something is, it's not me. It won't think like me, it won't feel like me, it won't respond to stimulus like me. The resurrected copy on the other hand will pass any test I or anyone else can think of to determine whether it's really me.
Of course, this is all academic as there's no real way to bring about either event; they are both merely imaginary solutions to our fear of death. But similar issues may be of more concern in a future that includes uploaded consciousness or matter transportation.
And another one: 