WS, that is a very good question. It is a question that is difficult to answer, though perhaps it is not that it is so difficult to answer; rather it is difficult to understand the answer. That is because in the resurrection we are raised to a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44). The problem here is that we simply do not know, nor can we comprehend precisely, what a spiritual body is. We have nothing in our experience to guide us to an understanding. Not even Paul was ready to answer that question. All he said about it was that it was not the body that died. Paul described it as being "sown",i.e., buried. Paul said, "what you sow is not the body that is to be" (1 Cor 15:37), . He says that there are earthly bodies and heavenly bodies and in the resurrection we will receive a heavenly body, that is, a spiritual body. Imagine that spiritual body to be however you wish, but do not think of it as your revived earthly body.
As far as I can tell, "resurrection" means a couple different things, depending on context.
Within the gospels, it seems to me to be a referent back to the Ezekiel 37 prophecy of dry bones. Within the prophecy, Israel was "dead" but predicted to be "resurrected." This re-instatement of Israel was accomplished through water baptism. From the nations where Israel had once been scattered, converts were drawn, and adopted back into Israel, causing it to live and exist again, though it had been dead. Ephesians 2 likewise draws out this doctrine... the Ephesians were said to have been "dead in sins" but now had been "quickened." The first meaning of resurrection is what we typically call regeneration or conversion.
But in the passage you pointed out, 1Cor 15, Paul certainly deals with the question of a yet-future resurrection, that pertains to those who are already
believers. While I don't agree with your reading of the chapter, I can agree that it's a hard to understand. I read the words translated natural
are Greek psychic and pneumatic, like this:It is sown a psychic body; it is raised a pneumatic body.
This leads me to believe that what is described is not a different form of body, but rather a different mode of movement - a change in raison d'etre.