I have yet to find a christian that can truly explain the bodily reserrection of Christ doctrine. They become so confused after a few minutes that many of them will try to change the subject on you. I was talking to a born-again co-worker of mine about this very subject and after 15 minutes of going over scriptures he said "you know booker-t I have never really swallowed the bodily reserrection doctrine but this is what my church teaches." After I showed him 1 Pet 3:18 showing that Christ was put to death "in the flesh" but made alive "in the spirit" he tried to explain it away by saying that it should read "by the spirit". I asked him did he know who Ron Rhodes was and after showing him some of Mr. Rhodes books on the JW's, even Ron Rhodes admits that the JW's translation is correct and 1Pet 3:18 should read "in the spirit" and not "by the spirit" the late Walter Martin deceived many christians by trying to say "by the spirit" when he knew it should have read "in the spirit". I even had one staunch "born-again" try and wiggle out of this by saying it should read "by the flesh" and made alive by th spirit". Obviously Peter knew Jesus was put to death by human beings so why in the world would he say by the flesh. Peter was showing that Jesus would be reserrected in a "new body" and no longer will be existing in a fleshly body. That is why he put flesh and body on a contrast or in the dative showing that a change occured. If Jesus had been reserrected in the same body that he died with it would have been useless for Peter to make such a comparison in body types.
Why do "christians" have such a hard time explaining the bodily reserrect?
by booker-t 9 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
RollerDave
I don't know, it seems obvious to me he would have had to be resurrected in the Spirit.
Before the flood, the angels were able to materialize bodies to lay with human women, Jesus is certainly more than an angel, does it not stand to reason the spirit body he was resurrected into would be able to do this as well?
Just my take on things, I don't know what their problem is.
RD
-
barry
Bookert, When christ was resserected from the dead he had a spiritual body. At the tomb Jesus body was not there. Thomas said i wont beleive unless I see the wounds in his hands and his feet. Jesus said he was not a spirit and he had bones and flesh and he ate some boiled fish to prove it.
Booker t what are you talking about?
-
Undecided
I was just wondering what life is? Christ was supposedly reincarnated into a human from a spirit. What happened to the spirit person when he was put into Mary's womb to be born as a human and was still supposedly Christ and also a direct decendent of David. It seems more like a fairy tale than a real happening. I just can't seem to believe in Jesus anymore, it just doesn't make sense to me. I can see why the Christains say we just need to have faith in that tale, since any reasonable explaination isn't there.
Ken P.
-
Narkissos
Because with that spelling they never found it in the dictionary?
-
blueviceroy
Answer me this . How can you explain something that defies logic? How can something based on information that goes against the very things you see each day as reality be explained as a thing you must believe to survive to reach the ultimate realization of your existence? You must believe this story and just take it on faith that it is real or you will perish for all eternity as a wasted effort. That sounds like a line of BS to me but what do I know ? I just live here like the rest of you .We all have value and we all have a purpose and all religion does is limit this truth and cut away our self worth and replace it with some construct meant to enslave the mind not free it or lift it up > If you believe that a religion has the answer to salvation you should join the one with the most members as they must have all the answers,,,right? Sorry if I got of track ,,,blueviceroy
-
I quit!
If someone can believe in the virgin birth then I don't see why they would have trouble believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Both fall into the miracle class and either you believe it or you don't. If you believe he was made alive in the spirit why would you have trouble believing he was resurrected in the same body? Why can't a spirit have a physical body? If he wasn't in the body he died in then he was a liar because he went around fooling his followers by showing them bogus wounds on a body that was never really crucified pretending it was the body. I thing you can get bogged arguing over things like this when really if someone is a Christian they should be focusing on the first part of this scripture.
-
Lloyd Braun
I was watching this for the angles on the conspiracies, and there is a good part of this that has to do with Horus of Egypt, (Jesus Christ).
Matt
-
Leolaia
After I showed him 1 Pet 3:18 showing that Christ was put to death "in the flesh" but made alive "in the spirit" he tried to explain it away by saying that it should read "by the spirit". I asked him did he know who Ron Rhodes was and after showing him some of Mr. Rhodes books on the JW's, even Ron Rhodes admits that the JW's translation is correct and 1Pet 3:18 should read "in the spirit" and not "by the spirit" the late Walter Martin deceived many christians by trying to say "by the spirit" when he knew it should have read "in the spirit". I even had one staunch "born-again" try and wiggle out of this by saying it should read "by the flesh" and made alive by th spirit". Obviously Peter knew Jesus was put to death by human beings so why in the world would he say by the flesh. Peter was showing that Jesus would be reserrected in a "new body" and no longer will be existing in a fleshly body.
The dative in 1 Peter 3:18 could technically indicate either the mode in which Jesus was "made alive" (zóopoiétheis) or the agent that was responsible for making him alive, but as you correctly note the implicit antithesis indicates that the former reading is more likely than the latter. But it is important to realize that the antithesis is not between pneuma and sóma but between pneuma and sarx "flesh". If the author had said that Jesus was put to death in the body and raised in the spirit, then the antithesis would imply that Jesus was not raised bodily but as an asomatic spirit. But since the author states that Jesus was killed in the flesh and raised in the spirit, this would allow for a view similar to that of Paul, that Jesus was not raised in a fleshly existence, but in a spiritual existence. Paul viewed the spiritual body as transformed from the fleshly body, hence allagésometha in 1 Corinthians 15:51 and metaskhématisei to sóma in Philippians 3:21. It is still a bodily resurrection but the nature of the body has been changed to a different kind of existence.
there is a good part of this that has to do with Horus of Egypt, (Jesus Christ).
No, that video is dreadful, and the Horus/Jesus claims are nonsense for the most part. There were a few threads earlier this year where I discussed this in further detail.
-
frankiespeakin
LB,
I think the film made some good points but the 9/11 thing, was one thing that took away from it. I like the astrology connection I think it deffinitely had merit, but not absolutely correct in every biblical referance. I think they may be touching on a basic unconcious foundation for the repitition of common themed stories.