Steven Carr

The resurrection stories in the Gospels have clear elements of propaganda about them.

Jesus testifies personally to his flesh and blood, and the disciples are made to verify that at first-hand (literally)

There is also a gratuitous fish-eating episode, which has no more to do with the plot than characters in Hollywood films drinking cans of Pepsi-Cola (TM) for no apparent reason.

Clearly theses stories were to counteract the claims of some Christians that 'All flesh is grass', 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God', and that Jesus 'became a life-giving spirit'.

But there no similar anti-docetic elements in the rest of the Gospels, with the possible exception of John 1. Nothing at all as blatant as Luke's post-resurrection stories, which do little more than hammer home that the resurrected Jesus had flesh and blood.

Let me try an analogy, which might be our present-day situation if history had taken one or two different turns.

Suppose a swan had appeared to Saul in a vision, and Saul had become convinced that Zeus had turned into a swan, and after the swan's death, turned back again.

Would Saul have thought there was anything special about this swan during the swan's lifetime? Possibly not. Only when the swan died, was it revealed that the swan had been Zeus (Shades of Romans 1:1-4,perhaps)

Would Saul have thought of the swan in his vision as historical? Very likely. After all, there are lots of swans. Saul would naturally believe this visionary swan had been a perfectly flesh-and-blood swan.

Did the swan really exist? Only in Saul's mind and the minds of his fellow Zeusians.

Only an analogy, but one which might stimulate discussion.

Nice Squirrel

Zeus did turn into a swan and seduced Lita.