Sentences with phrase «not bodily resurrection»

Also what the Pharisees believed in was not bodily resurrection but «the resurrection» when israel is restored.

Now following the link of «Resurrection of the dead» wiki agrees with the early point of not bodily resurrection but «national resurrection

Not exact matches

1 Peter 3:18 — during the crucifixion when Christ died — Jesus died in the flesh, but his deity was alive «alive in the spirit» (a Spirit can not die, therefore when a verse says «raise from the dead» it can only refer to a bodily resurrection)

A Resurrection of his physical body, such as is implied by the empty tomb and by some of the stories in the Gospels of his appearances, would point towards a docetic Christ who does not fully share the lot of men; unless, indeed, bodily corruption were to be regarded as being bound up with the sinfulness of man which Christ did not share (but, unless we accept an impossibly literalistic interpretation of Genesis 3 as factual history, it is impossible to hold that physical dissolution is not part of the Creator's original and constant intention for his creatures in this world).

I doubt that he would personally object to bodily resurrection, ascension, and enthronement, although these are not the themes of his teaching.

Unless one can accept, say, the doctrines of the Virgin Birth, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, and the Trinity, then one can not be a Christian believer.

That is why I said that of course I did not maintain that one can not be an intelligent Christian and continue to believe in a bodily resurrection.

And you can't use we are more «enlighten» then the dark ages, for they did not believe in bodily resurrection just as us but for different reasons.

So much of the media focuses on what Crossan questions - the bodily resurrection of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus - that people assume he's not a Christian.

Funny, I thought Christians believed in a bodily resurrection of everybody in the end times, heaven or hell coming after that resurrection, not some spiritual heaven - ish or hell - ish para-existence in a disembodied state that starts the moment you die physically.

And after all, it doesn't really matter if it was an actual bodily resurrection, because a bodily resurrection has no religious significance.

But the fact that a bodily resurrection could have certain implications for people of the first century does not necessarily mean it can have these same implications for us today.

Therefore those who can not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth can not use this as an excuse to reject Christianity.

While Paul's thought is by no means always clear, and perhaps from letter to letter not always exactly the same, it is nevertheless certain that his concept of resurrection can be clearly distinguished from that of the traditional «bodily resurrection».27 Paul does not speak in terms of the «same body» but rather in terms of a new body, whether it be a «spiritual body», 28 «the likeness of the heavenly man», 29 «a house not made by human hands, eternal and in heaven», 30 or, a «new body put on» over the old.31 In using various figures of speech to distinguish between the present body of flesh and blood and the future resurrection body, he seems to be thinking of both bodies as the externals which clothe the spirit and without which we should «find ourselves naked».32 But he freely confesses that the «earthly frame that houses us today ’33 may, like the seed, and man of dust, be destroyed, but the «heavenly habitation», which the believer longs to put on, is already waiting in the heavenly realm, for it is eternal by nature.

As the Christian comes to abandon his belief in the empty tomb and «bodily resurrection», even though he once regarded it as a sure and certain proof of the truth of Christianity, he may experience an exhilarating sense of freedom not unlike that felt by Paul when for the sake of Christ he abandoned the former things in which he trusted.

Nowadays even the most conservative defenders of the «bodily resurrection» of Jesus do not hesitate to support their case by arguments resting on an historical or literary basis.

The point being made at the present is that we are not really «in a position to ask about the meaning of the resurrection» until we have escaped from the fetters of the rigid tradition of «bodily resurrection».

’15 He further conceded that this view of «bodily resurrection» may remain equally true whether the original corpse of Jesus continued to remain in the tomb or not.

We have opened up the question sufficiently to show that there is a very real possibility that the whereabouts of the burial place of Jesus was not known when his resurrection first began to be proclaimed, and that unless this can be established as an historical fact, that argument for the «bodily resurrection» which we have been considering remains invalid.

In his book Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright notes, «The point of the resurrection... is that the present bodily life is not valueless just because it will die... What you do with your body in the present matters because God has a great future in store for it.

Bodily resurrection is not just one odd bit of that hope.

First, the interest in bodily resurrection demonstrates that Christians understood the person as composed of soul and body, not primarily as soul.

Bynum does not claim to know exactly what earlier understandings of bodily resurrection say to us, but she intuits that they tell us something if we have ears to hear and eyes to see.

It is also inconsistent with the reality of the human body on earth, which clearly does not rise, and indeed with the bodily resurrection of Christ and the Assumption of Our Lady.

It was not some spiritual resurrection in the confused minds of befuddled disciples, but the man from Nazareth who arose bodily from the tomb and appeared to talk and eat with his discouraged, frightened followers.

Surely it should be clear that the paradoxical character of the term «spiritual body,» when applied to the resurrected Christ, means that Paul did not conceive of the bodily resurrection as a «proof.»

For Paul, there is a bodily resurrection, but since «flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God,» there must be different kinds of bodies or different sorts of vessels in which we have our humanity.

Corollaries to these notions were that embodied human beings are intrinsically evil and must undertake severe ascetical practices to «free» the soul from its carnal prison; that marriage and the getting of children is evil; and that the Catholic Church, with its bodily sacraments and its doctrines of «the resurrection of the flesh,» not to mention its rich and worldly ways, is a principle of evil.

Luke countered withdrawal from bodily existence with the blatantly bodily quality of Jesus» resurrection — «See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have» (Luke 24:39).

Make no mistake, we are not challenging the historical fact of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Paul was a Pharisee, and Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection, so if Paul believed that the talking, bright light speaking to him on the Damascus Road was the executed Jesus, then he would of course believe that he had seen the (bodily) resurrected Jesus, even if he had actually not seen a body, but only a bright light!

We reject, as ideas not rooted in Judaism, the beliefs both in bodily resurrection and in Gehenna and Eden as abodes for everlasting punishments and rewards.»

But this brings us to another aspect of Omega immortality that is, if not counterintuitive, then countercultural: its strangeness, in association with the bodily resurrection.

I was assigned the task of teaching theology, but when I came to the resurrection, I honestly had to say at that stage that is was not about an actual event of a bodily resurrection but a community memory of an unexplained event.