Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
how about we start by you explaining why it wasn't necessary.Could somebody explain to me why the physical body of Jesus was resurected when it was not nessessary ?
Of course there will be some who will be offended. I'm not one of them since I believe we're all entitled to our own opinions. Personally, I don't believe anyone could have survived the scourging Jesus did, followed by a crucifixion, especially in the weakened state in which He left Gethsemane. I believe He truly died and was truly resurrected. I just don't understand why olson apparently believes His death was necessary but not His resurrection.I know there will be some that this will offend, but this is how I see it; Maybe he wasn't dead. Without proper instruments that we have today, there is a chance that Jesus was in a comatose state in which allowed enough time for him to be placed in his tomb, then leave upon awakening. Yes there was a large stone placed in front of his tomb, but remember there were mourners outside who would hear if he woke up and pleaded for help. Possibly the claim that he was ressurected for mearly for the protection of Jesus. On the other hand, miracles do happen, just not to everybody, and God can do as wished.
how about we start by you explaining why it wasn't necessary.
Without the resurection, wouldn't what Jesus taught about it have been meaningless? In my opinion His resurection was necessary.
The spirit transends the the body. Why was it necessary for his body to be resurected along with his spirit ?
The only thing that conceivably can be resurrected is the body. The spirit never dies so it cannot be reborn. To be resurrected is to come back to life. I would agree with you that the spirit transcends the body. I take this to mean that a spirit can exist as a cognizant entity either outside of a body or inside a body. When a person dies, his spirit leaves his body but does not cease to exist. The physical body is said to be dead but the spirit continues to live. Resurrection takes place when the spirit re-enters a body, restoring it to life again. This is why it doesn't make sense to me to think of Jesus' spirit to have been resurrected.The spirit transends the the body. Why was it necessary for his body to be resurected along with his spirit ?
Could you define your terms, please? Jesus pointed out to His Apostles that He had a body of flesh and bones. That sounds "physical" to me. The fact that he had a body of flesh and bones, however, did not mean that it was a mortal body, i.e. one that would be subject to disease and death again. It was spiritual in that it was incorruptable and immortal, but it certainly did have a corporeal form. How else would the Apostles have felt the wounds in His hands, feet and side?The physical body was not resurected. Christ and all who are resurected are given a spiritual body.
I know there will be some that this will offend, but this is how I see it; Maybe he wasn't dead.
Could you define your terms, please? Jesus pointed out to His Apostles that He had a body of flesh and bones.
The physical body was not resurected. Christ and all who are resurected are given a spiritual body.
The only thing that conceivably can be resurrected is the body. The spirit never dies so it cannot be reborn. To be resurrected is to come back to life. I would agree with you that the spirit transcends the body. I take this to mean that a spirit can exist as a cognizant entity either outside of a body or inside a body. When a person dies, his spirit leaves his body but does not cease to exist. The physical body is said to be dead but the spirit continues to live. Resurrection takes place when the spirit re-enters a body, restoring it to life again. This is why it doesn't make sense to me to think of Jesus' spirit to have been resurrected.
Could you define your terms, please? Jesus pointed out to His Apostles that He had a body of flesh and bones. That sounds "physical" to me. The fact that he had a body of flesh and bones, however, did not mean that it was a mortal body, i.e. one that would be subject to disease and death again. It was spiritual in that it was incorruptable and immortal, but it certainly did have a corporeal form. How else would the Apostles have felt the wounds in His hands, feet and side?
It is the same body in that it would be recognizable, as Jesus' was, to those who knew the person. When I see my loved ones again in Heaven, I believe they will be physically recognizable to me. It's a different body in that it has different attributes. It will no longer be subject to death or disease, but will be perfect, glorious and immortal.I agree. Is it the same body?