• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Law of necessity changes over time because of changed circumstances in society.
And that's what the Baha'is say. Except... what societal laws did Jesus teach? Like if a man's bull gores his neighbor?

the Torah is eternal, its covenants are eternal (verses available upon request) and it is the blueprint of our laws. Actual, real laws. Not a spirit of law, but law. We are forbidden to add to it or take away from it but we are also taught how to derive it in all its iterations, apply it and protect it. You are confusing the application and protection with any change in the terms of the underlying law. The rabbi applies and understands the variables. He does not interpret the law, itself but the situation which informs which law he applies and how. That law is unchanging.
Is there wiggle room in the Hebrew word used for "eternal" to allow for Christians and Baha'is to say that God changes his laws? But it's more like he gets rid of them. With Christians it seems like they still refer to moral laws and maybe a few others, though. Baha'is... they have their own laws. They just say that the "spiritual" laws never change, just the social laws.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Jesus was promising the Advocate who is the Holy Spirit in John 14:26 to His disciples of the day and saying that this Advocate would remind them of what He had told them.
John 15:26 tells us that the Advocate is the Spirit of Truth.
When read together we see that the Spirit of Truth was promised to Jesus disciples of His day and would remind them of what He would told them and would testify about Jesus.
My interpretation is as good as yours, but you are free to have your beliefs and I will have mine.
Peter said that Pentecost was what the prophet Joel spoke of (Acts 2:16) and that also means that Pentecost was in the last days. It also says other things that will happen before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
And really I don't think you could say that Baha'u'llah was responsible for events that happened a long time before he came. You could say that they happened in the lead up to the great and glorious day of the Lord.
But a meteor shower the earth going dark in one part for a day and a big earth quake are really not earth shattering things. Things like that do happen.
I will leave it to you and others on the forum that care about prophecies to discuss prophecies. Unless they are very specific, prophecies are not a reliable indicator because they can always be denied, and they can also be twisted to mean whatever people want them to mean.
One or 2 would be fine, not a whole book of them.
There are so many prophecies but Micah 7:12 is a good one.

Please note that Baha’u’llah had no control over His own destiny for the last 40 years of His Life after He declared His mission because He was deemed a prisoner of the government He was banished and exiled from place to place. The following prophecy was fulfilled by these exiles and banishments.

Map of Baháʼu'lláh's banishments

upload_2020-6-28_22-11-19.png



Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.

and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.

The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.

and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.

and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.

and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.

The other mountain was in Israel, Mount Carmel, where He had docked before His final journey to Akka. Later He had a chance to return to Mount Carmel, to pitch His tent. Here He wrote the Tablet Of Carmel, surrounded by pilgrims looking for the return of Christ to descend from heaven. Mount Carmel is the headquarters of the Baha’i Faith.

From: William Sears, Thief in the Night
So Jesus words become part of the history of God's religions and Messengers when they are deemed to be abrogated because they part of the dispensation of Jesus for His dispensation only. That sort of makes the statement of Jesus about His words not passing away, irrelevant and muted.
Jesus’ words were never abrogated, only His Dispensation was abrogated.
Examples of parts of the Bible which are denied and replaced by the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha are written about in this post. Eg John 14:26, John 15:26. You deny that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that was given at Pentecost.
Another might be John 14:3 where Jesus promises to return and Acts 1:9-11 where Baha'i denies that the same Jesus will come back in the same way the disciples saw Him go into heaven.
I could go on for a while with examples if you like.
How about Luke 1:32 where it is said that Jesus is the one to sit on the throne of David forever as in Isa 9:6-7?
How about Acts 8:26-40 where Isa 53 is shown to be a prophecy about Jesus? etc etc
None of these are denials or replacements of the Bible. All of them are just different ways that people interpret the Bible. Christians believe they have shown something and Baha’is believe that have shown something, and in reality, they are just different interpretations of the same verses. But I am not going to cover the same ground again. If you do not understand the logic by now, you never will.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Except there's so many degrees of being good or evil. So the most wicked are like a rock? And what do they have to, or what can they do as a rock, to advance to a higher level? Then what about an average person? They aren't that bad, but they aren't that good either? They only develop maybe the beginnings of spiritual limbs?

Virtues are our adorning CG, but developing eyes and ears for the spiritual life to come, are the hardest spiritual lessons.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My interpretation is as good as yours, but you are free to have your beliefs and I will have mine.

I will leave it to you and others on the forum that care about prophecies to discuss prophecies. Unless they are very specific, prophecies are not a reliable indicator because they can always be denied, and they can also be twisted to mean whatever people want them to mean.

There are so many prophecies but Micah 7:12 is a good one.

Please note that Baha’u’llah had no control over His own destiny for the last 40 years of His Life after He declared His mission because He was deemed a prisoner of the government He was banished and exiled from place to place. The following prophecy was fulfilled by these exiles and banishments.

Map of Baháʼu'lláh's banishments

View attachment 41110



Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.

and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.

The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.

and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.

and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.

and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.

The other mountain was in Israel, Mount Carmel, where He had docked before His final journey to Akka. Later He had a chance to return to Mount Carmel, to pitch His tent. Here He wrote the Tablet Of Carmel, surrounded by pilgrims looking for the return of Christ to descend from heaven. Mount Carmel is the headquarters of the Baha’i Faith.

From: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Jesus’ words were never abrogated, only His Dispensation was abrogated.

None of these are denials or replacements of the Bible. All of them are just different ways that people interpret the Bible. Christians believe they have shown something and Baha’is believe that have shown something, and in reality, they are just different interpretations of the same verses. But I am not going to cover the same ground again. If you do not understand the logic by now, you never will.

That prophecy is about as clear as it gets. Yet the many Christains I show it to, just shrug the shoulders, or default to the statement that Jesus is the only Name by which you are saved.

It makes me wonder how they think Jesus Christs Prophecies were and clearer?

But not only that, there is a truck load for Baha'u'llah, that can be shown to be fulfilled, over the handful for Jesus the Christ.

Regards Tony
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Yes, there is something specific. I have a problem with the literal resurrection. I understand the spiritual resurrection, BUT in the nt it seems the resurrection is of the flesh. In orthodox christianity at least, they thing the flesh body will rise again and they say it's written in the nt. How can I say this is value???

You can see the benefit in believers today. Even though it most likely is a false belief, it gives people hope, and hope helps people overcome tremendous odds. Think of why people follow religions. Most believe because it gives them comfort by providing them with hope, as opposed to actually examining the evidence. Whether the resurrection is spiritual or not doesn't matter as long as hope is involved. Hope makes people stress less and feel more at ease. This is the purpose of religion.

Also I would understand if you say resurrections as a whole are not of value, but why do find a spiritual resurrection understandable and the physical one not? I don't understand why you have a problem with the one and not the other.

Also note, this doesn't make the whole of the NT of no value.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That prophecy is about as clear as it gets. Yet the many Christains I show it to, just shrug the shoulders, or default to the statement that Jesus is the only Name by which you are saved.

It makes me wonder how they think Jesus Christs Prophecies were and clearer?

But not only that, there is a truck load for Baha'u'llah, that can be shown to be fulfilled, over the handful for Jesus the Christ.

Regards Tony
It does not matter how many prophecies Baha'u'llah fulfilled or how clear they are.
Christians are waiting for the same man Jesus to return in the physical clouds.
I do not think that Christians want to know even if Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, because that would mean the same man Jesus is not coming back and that would spoil their hopes and dreams. It's all psychological. Imo.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
You can see the benefit in believers today. Even though it most likely is a false belief, it gives people hope, and hope helps people overcome tremendous odds. Think of why people follow religions. Most believe because it gives them comfort by providing them with hope, as opposed to actually examining the evidence. Whether the resurrection is spiritual or not doesn't matter as long as hope is involved. Hope makes people stress less and feel more at ease. This is the purpose of religion.

Also I would understand if you say resurrections as a whole are not of value, but why do find a spiritual resurrection understandable and the physical one not? I don't understand why you have a problem with the one and not the other.

Also note, this doesn't make the whole of the NT of no value.
Because the physical resurrection is impossible. How can I believe the impossible???
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Because the physical resurrection is impossible. How can I believe the impossible???

I prefer to say "we have no evidence at the moment to believe that such a thing could have happen or could happen". To say that something is "impossible" is to make a truth claim based on incredulity. I could just as easily say that a spiritual resurrection is impossible.

We do not actually know whether we will find evidence in the future that someone can be physically resurrected.

By the way your response about the resurrection being impossible doesn't address whether that belief is valuable or not.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Here, I'll show you how Jews see the verse. It says:
"And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
It says "an anointed one", not "the anointed one" or "the Messiah" (as some Christian translations prefer to use whenever they translate verses they think refer to Jesus). On this thread there have been posted links to a number of Jewish interpretations of the verse, but none of those include the belief that this verse involves the death of the one true Messiah ben David. That's simply reading in something that isn't there.

No doubt the whole passage from Daniel 9:24 to Daniel 9:27 needs to be considered for possible reasons that the Christians see it as referring to The Messiah. The Christian translations should not translate The Messiah when that is not what the original text tells us however. There may be a language reason for the Christian translations however.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Is there wiggle room in the Hebrew word used for "eternal" to allow for Christians and Baha'is to say that God changes his laws? But it's more like he gets rid of them. With Christians it seems like they still refer to moral laws and maybe a few others, though. Baha'is... they have their own laws. They just say that the "spiritual" laws never change, just the social laws.
This is a great and complicated question. The Torah laws, according to Judaism, as eternal not just because of a singular verse that uses a word (or, actually, a phrase) that means "eternal" but because the text says that we are bound to them and in the future, at any point, we will still be bound to them. So as long as people are around, the laws will be in effect.

The Hebrew "l'olam" is often thought of as meaning "forever". It means "to the world" and is understood of as "to the [end of] the world". However, there are specific contexts where it means "for an indeterminate long time" or even "for a specific long, but not eternal time -- up to 50 years." A phrase like "l'olam va'ed" is much closer to "forever." But in the absence of any mitigating factors or interpreted phrases to the contrary, we see that a covenant, or an obligation, marked with the word "olam" means "forever" (so circumcision in Gen 17:13) and the Sabbath (in Ex 31:16-17) are eternal covenants requiring that we follow the actual laws.

One of those bilateral agreements is to be bound to the "Torah" (as in Deut 29:13-14 -- it was given to all those at Sinai and all those not at Sinai which refers to all later generations, and Deut 32:46 which names explicitly that it is the "Torah" which Jews must follow). In Lev 26:44-46 God says that if we sin, our covenant will not be annulled and when we return, we will still be bound by the same Torah (he uses the word to point explicitly to the same canon of law). There is no time limit given. No situation is presented in which those laws suddenly no longer apply. If the Torah is perfect (Psalms 19) then to say that God (who is perfect, Deut 32:4) changes or gets rid of it is to lessen that perfection.

As I said, it is a complex idea and I hope I gave a proper entree into the topic. I saw a lovely explanation which starts with an apparent contradiction in the words of a particular talmudic sage. In one place he says "in Messianci days there will be no mitzvot/commandments." In another, he says "the halachot (laws) are eternal and will be eternally followed." It was explained that in the future, following the laws will be automatic and won't require that we are commanded to do so, so the "command" aspect will disappear, but not the behaviors and law-following.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
It shows us that we do not have to reject God because of the veil on Names. God is seen in all Names and all the Messengers.

Regards Tony

If I had faith in Baha'u'llah then no doubt I would see the Bible the way you do but because I am a Christian I see things written in the Bible which are warnings to me about false Christs and which Baha'i manages to skirt around in an unconvincing way imo
eg Acts 1:10,11
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee, they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

The Baha'i "interpretation" of what the angel said (if indeed the event is admitted to have happened by Baha'is) is to see "this same Jesus" as Baha'u'llah (thus a different Jesus) and to see "in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" as meaning "not in the same way you have seen him go into heaven" (or some other symbolic interpretation).
To me this is just a denial of what is in the Bible and a replacing it with Baha'i teachings.
In every place where the NT tells us that Jesus will come back and even when Jesus says He will come back it is just explained away as if what the Bible says does not really matter when compared to what Baha'u'llah said.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
No doubt the whole passage from Daniel 9:24 to Daniel 9:27 needs to be considered for possible reasons that the Christians see it as referring to The Messiah. The Christian translations should not translate The Messiah when that is not what the original text tells us however. There may be a language reason for the Christian translations however.
The Messiah or the anointed one in Hebrew is Hamashiach המשיח.
A messiah or an anointed one in Hebrew is mashiach משיח.
The text tells of the death of a messiah, an anointed one.
However, Christians, over the ages, were looking to read in everything in the Tanach as referring to Jesus, and so changed the word from a to the. That's what happened.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I can say each day the world fulfill more and more of what is already foretold in the Baha'i Writings, uncannily in fact.

Regards Tony

I certainly have not read all of Baha'u'llah's writings but some of the stuff I have read is taken from what could be gleaned from the Bible and part would be easy to foresee by a spirit that has an overview of the world and knows the sorts of things that humanity was on the verge of doing and the directions it was on the verse of taking.
But that is no help for you if you don't even think that we can be deceived by a spirit like that, a satan. That part of the Bible teaching has been got rid of and so any fulfilled prophecies of Baha'u'llah have to be from God.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
I prefer to say "we have no evidence at the moment to believe that such a thing could have happen or could happen". To say that something is "impossible" is to make a truth claim based on incredulity. I could just as easily say that a spiritual resurrection is impossible.

We do not actually know whether we will find evidence in the future that someone can be physically resurrected.

By the way your response about the resurrection being impossible doesn't address whether that belief is valuable or not.
I don't know what more to say.

But I have a question. How strong is the influence of the physical resurrection in the NT? This whole idea is like a thorn. o_O
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I don't know what more to say.

But I have a question. How strong is the influence of the physical resurrection in the NT? This whole idea is like a thorn. o_O

The influence isn't much actually. What matters is the resurrection itself, whether it is spiritual or physical. For instance most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus is physical whereas JW's say it is spiritual, but neither has a noticeable effect on the basic belief structure. In both views, Jesus is still the messiah and his blood was sacrificed for mankind. The only affect it has is whether people will be resurrected to heavenly life or will still live on earth when resurrected.

I don't see how the idea of the physical resurrection is like a thorn though. Mind elaborating?
 

syo

Well-Known Member
The influence isn't much actually. What matters is the resurrection itself, whether it is spiritual or physical. For instance most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus is physical whereas JW's say it is spiritual, but neither has a noticeable effect on the basic belief structure. In both views, Jesus is still the messiah and his blood was sacrificed for mankind. The only affect it has is whether people will be resurrected to heavenly life or will still live on earth when resurrected.

I don't see how the idea of the physical resurrection is like a thorn though. Mind elaborating?
Didn't Paul say that if Jesus didn't resurrect everything would be vain???
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
What is the internal evidence besides someone claiming such? We must avoid circular reasoning, saying that a book is true because it says it is true, otherwise we would accept anything. When it comes to ancient methods, they did not have the technology to date items and determine whether information was reliable or not, so they had to use tradition and word of mouth, which is understandable. These days we have technology and methods that can actually date items and information, which makes our methods superior.

One cannot determine whether the gospels are lies though. We can only come to most likely conclusions based on information we have. One shouldn't accept claims that people make though without evidence in this day and age, so there has to be outside evidence to show that the gospels are true. Otherwise we might as well believe anything we wish. We need a consistent standard.

You also haven't demonstrated which method is more reliable. You are just making statements about others without showing how they come to their conclusions. Please do so.

The supernatural cannot be taken into account because by definition those events would not be able to be examined as they don't follow natural processes. If we had to take the supernatural into account we would come to infinite possibilities because there is no standard to examine anything on. In addition there is no proof of miracles that can be examined, so claiming the supernatural is pointless.

Please show this evidence that you keep speaking of. And bare in mind that you cannot use the prophecies themselves, except what they say, because that would be circular reasoning.

With the internal evidence there is no one claiming anything. It is just taking the documents, without the assumption that they were written after the Temple destruction and looking to see what the evidence shows about when they were written.
What technology is available these days that was not available last century? All there is is sceptic assumption. It is not as if anything can be carbon dated to see when the original was written. As I said the old methods used no assumption either way, the new methods do.
I am not a textual critic but I could point to Luke as the author of Luke gospel and Acts as a sequel. Luke was a travel companion of Paul. Luke wrote Acts up to the time they went to Rome. The assumption is that both Luke and Paul were killed in the Nero killing of Christians in 64AD. All this internal evidence gives a probably 50s 60s writing date for the Luke gospel and another internal evidence is that Luke claims there were other gospels written before his, so this puts the writing of gospels back even further.
It can be assumed that internal evidence was planted to make it look as if there was an early writing of the gospels just to fool people. But I guess that is begging the question.

It is there because you wish it to be. You are proof texting and ignoring the immediate context.

I'm not ignoring the immediate context. Young woman for the immediate context and virgin when associated with the Isa 9 child. Part of the immediate context in the book of prophecies. The child, Divine Messiah, who was going to be in the region of Galilee and was going to be a sign that God is with us for the Jews who trusted God.
It's there because I want it to be there. Proof of what I say is not possible.

OK. Please demonstrate that they intentionally changed the understanding of verses to suit their agenda?

The agenda of seeing Hezekiah as the fulfilment of the Isa 9:6,7 prophecy required a misreading of verse 7 to ignore that it says that he would reign forever on David's throne. The names of the child in verse 6 are translated different ways by the Jews and hide the fact that the child is called Mighty God, Eternal Father, and to do that requires addition of words and phrases which are not in the original text.

Yet Isaiah 7 is about giving Ahaz hope? That doesn't seem to match what you are saying.

Before the Emmanuel prophecy God seems to have been calming Ahaz. After the prophecy when it became apparent that Ahaz was going to Assyria anyway, the sign seems to have been given of nasty things that would happen, so that Ahaz would see the truth what Isaiah had originally told him and wish that he had just trusted in the Lord.
(This is an example of a prophecy given so that when it happens it is known that God knew all along and it encourages faith after the event even if it did not when the prophecy was first given)

Emphasis on "probably". And yes I do want to say that the psalmist possibly took the idea of crucifixion from a contemporary source, if that is indeed what the Psalmist was talking about. And no, that in itself would not eliminate it from being prophetic about Jesus.

You don't want to forget about the things that are there which were probably not part of the Persian crucifixion (and yes,,"probably" means I have to guess things)
Nails in hands and feet was a Roman method and I read the the usual method was tying in Persia.
But I suppose the piercing of the hands and feet might be all there is in the Psalm to indicate a crucifixion (Roman). The other things are things that may happen at a crucifixion but are pretty vague and could happen in other contexts also. BUT they are things that are said to have happened at Jesus crucifixion along with the piercing of the hands and feet.
Reading the Psalm it is hard to see how it could be a serious description of a crucifixion,,,,,,,,,,,,a cryptic one maybe.

Just a note, we are all skeptical. You are a skeptical of other religions for instance. Being a skeptic is something we should all strive to be, but skeptic and skeptical are two words meaning two different things.

I contend with you on these matters because you aren't providing explanations that demonstrate that your interpretation of things is the only way. You aren't eliminating the possibility that the gospels could have taken bits and pieces out of context. The OT texts that you are using aren't explicitly stating your conclusions and on further examination the context doesn't match. You have to rely on assumptions and eisegesis rather than exegesis to come to your conclusions, which is the reason why many OT scriptures do not come to your conclusions when examined in isolation from the NT claims. You are reading into the text that which is not obviously there.

I suppose I look at things from my pov and that is the pov of a believer who did not need everything proven before I believed. The more I look at things (the same things you are looking at) these days, the more reason I can see for the gospel writers to include them in the gospels because of the context, and I am glad that I hung around long enough in the faith to be able to see these things better.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yes, there is something specific. I have a problem with the literal resurrection. I understand the spiritual resurrection, BUT in the nt it seems the resurection is of the flesh. In orthodox christianity at least, they thing the flesh body will rise again and they say it's written in the nt. How can I say this is value???

There is a physical resurrection but the body is not going to be the same, it will be immortal and if Jesus is any example, able to do things that we cannot now do.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
There is a physical resurrection but the body is not going to be the same, it will be immortal and if Jesus is any example, able to do things that we cannot now do.
You mean we are granted new and advanced bodies?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
but why do find a spiritual resurrection understandable and the physical one not? I don't understand why you have a problem with the one and not the other.
Because a decomposed body cannot become recomposed.
Also because there is no reason to believe stories that can never be verified.
A story is not proof that what is in the story is true.

There is no proof of the bodily resurrection so it makes more sense to believe it never happened.
The only reason one would believe it happened is because they want to believe that, but that is not a good reason.
Imo.
 
Top