Quote:
Originally Posted by chapka
Having thought about it, my real, fundamental problem with this "flesh and blood/flesh and bone" position is that it's a misreading disguised as a subtle reading.
I mean, think about it. If you got this passage on a reading comprehension test, and the question below was:
What did Jesus mean when he said that he was "Flesh and bone"?
a. He was related to the disciples.
b. He was a physical body, not a ghost.
c. He was a spirit, but a kind which still had bones.
d. He was tired.
The answer is pretty obvious, honestly. Just based on the passage, the meaning is clear. "No, I'm not a ghost; my body has come back to life."
|
I agree with this, but the inference is also there IMO that he is no longer mortal(capable of dying), he has been clothed with immortality.
He is back from the grave but not as an earthly mortal (flesh and blood).
He mysteriously vanishes from the room IIRC.
Not the feat of a mere mortal (flesh and blood)
Had Jesus said he was flesh and blood the implications would have been
huge.
What is the good of being raised from the dead if one is just to die again later on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapka
I have the same problem with people who read the story of Cana and try to interpret it so that the wine can be non-alcoholic; it's clear that it's not the obvious meaning,
|
I quite agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chapka
it's the meaning they need it to be to fit their preconceptions. You can come up with complex interpretations that technically, grammatically fit the individual words of the sentence. But honestly, if you had that passage in isolation, its meaning is pretty clear.
|
As noted above I agree with your conclusions I just think there is some extra information by the use of this particular figure of speech.