Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-27-2010, 06:44 AM

In the Gospel of John one of the disciples called Thomas is said to have doubted that Jesus was resurrected after he was told by some that Jesus was seen alive.

This is gJohn on Thomas.

Joh 20:25 -

Quote:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed....

So, Thomas was convinced that it was the very Jesus who was crucified that was RAISED from the dead because he saw the PRINTS of the NAILS and saw the marks of the past injury to his side.

But, "Tertullian" will LATER explain that the body of the RESURRECTED should show NO SIGN of PAST INJURIES.

According to Tertullian the resurrected should have the Flesh BEFORE injury.

This is "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" 57

Quote:

....Now, if the death of the whole person is rescinded by its resurrection, what must we say of the death of a part of him? If we are changed for glory, how much more for integrity!

Any loss sustained by our bodies is an accident to them, but their entirety is their natural property. In this condition we are born.

Even if we become injured in the womb, this is loss suffered by what is already a human being.

Natural condition is prior to injury.

As life is bestowed by God, so is it restored by Him.

As we are when we receive it, so are we when we recover it.

To nature, not to injury, are we restored; to our state by birth, not to our condition by accident, do we rise again.

The resurrected Jesus should have had NO PRINTS on his hands but Flesh that was unblemished similar to his state of birth.

A burnt victim should not be raised from the dead showing scars.

The resurrection story in gJohn where Jesus had SCARS is not true based on "Tertullian". Jesus was supposed to be raised in perfection.

"On the Resurrection of the Flesh" 63

Quote:

...And so the flesh shall rise again, wholly in every man, in its own identity, in its absolute integrity.

"Tertullian" destroys gJohn's resurrection story.

Iskander · 07-27-2010, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In the Gospel of John one of the disciples called Thomas is said to have doubted that Jesus was resurrected after he was told by some that Jesus was seen alive.

This is gJohn on Thomas.

Joh 20:25 -

Quote:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed....

So, Thomas was convinced that it was the very Jesus who was crucified that was RAISED from the dead because he saw the PRINTS of the NAILS and saw the marks of the past injury to his side.

But, "Tertullian" will LATER explain that the body of the RESURRECTED should show NO SIGN of PAST INJURIES.

According to Tertullian the resurrected should have the Flesh BEFORE injury.

This is "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" 57

The resurrected Jesus should have had NO PRINTS on his hands but Flesh that was unblemished similar to his state of birth.

A burnt victim should not be raised from the dead showing scars.

The resurrection story in gJohn where Jesus had SCARS is not true based on "Tertullian". Jesus was supposed to be raised in perfection.

"On the Resurrection of the Flesh" 63

Quote:

...And so the flesh shall rise again, wholly in every man, in its own identity, in its absolute integrity.

"Tertullian" destroys gJohn's resurrection story.

Jesus was not an ordinary resurrection.
The resurrection of the flesh does not apply to him.
What Tertullian says is only his personal opinion, and this goes also for Ireneus, Justin, Origen and the whole lot of them.
Besides, the resurrected could keep the painless and no longer disabling signs of martyrdom as special medals like soldiers are decorated for valour in front of the enemy.

Tertullian and his dead pals cannot destroy anything at all.

aa5874 · 07-27-2010, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Jesus was not an ordinary resurrection.

What is an ordinary resurrection?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The resurrection of the flesh does not apply to him.

The author of gJohn claimed that Jesus the Word became FLESH

John 1. 14

Quote:

... And the Word was made FLESH and dwelt among us...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

What Tertullian says is only his personal opinion, and this goes also for Ireneus, Justin, Origen and the whole lot of them.

So, whose opinion should we accept since Jesus of the NT did not write his OWN opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by quote

...Tertullian and his dead pals cannot destroy anything at all.

Billions of people today have been "theologically" destroyed by "Tertullian" and his dead pals. They are waiting to be dead to cash in on their reward from the RESURRECTED dead who had SCARS.

Once Jesus of the NT was RAISED by God he should not have had SCARS.

The Pope and his pals should tell people that there will be no resurrection since it was a Fake Jesus who showed Thomas his SCARS.

Iskander · 07-27-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Jesus was not an ordinary resurrection.

What is an ordinary resurrection?

The author of gJohn claimed that Jesus the Word became FLESH

John 1. 14

So, whose opinion should we accept since Jesus of the NT did not write his OWN opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by quote

...Tertullian and his dead pals cannot destroy anything at all.

Billions of people today have been "theologically" destroyed by "Tertullian" and his dead pals. They are waiting to be dead to cash in on their reward from the RESURRECTED dead who had SCARS.

Once Jesus of the NT was RAISED by God he should not have had SCARS.

The Pope and his pals should tell people that there will be no resurrection since it was a Fake Jesus who showed Thomas his SCARS.

An ordinary resurrection is the one you are contrasting with the resurrected Christ.

Jesus is both a man and god

Any opinion is as good as the next one

The belief in resurrection is poison, but unfortunately humans have an appetite for it.

charles · 07-27-2010, 10:32 PM

Isn't that where we get the expression 'doubting Thomas'?

aa5874 · 07-28-2010, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles

Isn't that where we get the expression 'doubting Thomas'?

Based on Tertullian, there would have been NO scars on Jesus for 'doubting Thomas' to see.

The hands and side of Jesus should have looked the same as BEFORE the crucifixion.

Toto · 07-28-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles

Isn't that where we get the expression 'doubting Thomas'?

Yup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on Tertullian, there would have been NO scars on Jesus for 'doubting Thomas' to see.

The hands and side of Jesus should have looked the same as BEFORE the crucifixion.

So you've discovered yet another inconsistency in the Christian religion. What else is new?

Do you think A) early Christians were too stupid to notice this or B) the stories were not meant to be literal, and you and all Christian fundamentalists are missing the point. Well?

aa5874 · 07-28-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on Tertullian, there would have been NO scars on Jesus for 'doubting Thomas' to see.

The hands and side of Jesus should have looked the same as BEFORE the crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So you've discovered yet another inconsistency in the Christian religion. What else is new?

It is my position that Jesus was just a story so I MUST EXPOSE every single INCONSISTENCY that I can find.

I want to show that the Mythical/Fictional Jesus is FAR SUPERIOR to the HJ.

Inconsistency is a very significant element in making a determination on veracity of a claim.

More inconsistencies tend to support FICTION.

skepticdude · 07-29-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Tertullian and his dead pals cannot destroy anything at all.

What makes you think the author of John's gospel was any more correct about the resurrection of Jesus than Tertullian? You aren't gonna blindly assume that the author lived during the time of the apostles, are you?

Iskander · 07-30-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticdude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Tertullian and his dead pals cannot destroy anything at all.

What makes you think the author of John's gospel was any more correct about the resurrection of Jesus than Tertullian? You aren't gonna blindly assume that the author lived during the time of the apostles, are you?

Who is right? I don’t care.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-27-2010, 10:32 PM	#5
charles Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Midwest Posts: 94	Isn't that where we get the expression 'doubting Thomas'?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.