karlmarx

I don't understand this. Anyone can claim that they've had an apparition.
If Rome had claimed that Jesus simply "appeared" to Peter and anointed him the head of his church, that would leave the door open for any number of rivals subesquently experiencing similar apparitions, and later claiming special privileges.

However, Rome claims that a physical Jesus, who appeared at a specific moment in time, who was both God and man, anointed Peter head of the church. Rome claims this is history, supported by the NT. Jesus can no longer physically grant special privileges, as he has now ascended to heaven. He can now only do so through apparitions - but these can be labelled as false by Rome if they are inconvenient.

This brand of Christianity does not allow for subjective interpretations: either it is wholly right (Jesus did make Peter head of the church), or wholly wrong (Rome and the NT are lying about the issue). If Jesus had merely "appeared" to Peter, this would make the claim subject to interpretation. A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that Constantine chose this religion on these grounds alone.

Doug Shaver

Which early church?
What do you mean by "manifest"?
It would clarify much if you were to quote a document produced by that church.

mens_sana

Naturally a physical Jesus would be more convenient for an institution claiming an uninterrupted authority from its founder, and "apparitions" can/do lead to a fragile institution. ("Ongoing revelation" is a serious problem for any institution.) But once the institution gets going, it can claim whatever and be believed by its orthodox membership. The codification of the texts did more for the institution than the physicality of Jesus. Theological correctness, based in texts that were interpreted as being supportive of the institution as an entity (apostolic succession) won the day over ongoing revelation — because it provided the security of definition. However, that a physical Jesus was "convenient" cannot argue against the existence of a physical Jesus.

karlmarx

True, but it is consistent with the hypothesis that Jesus had not been physical initially, but was was given a physical reality later by those that stood to gain the most from it.

Sheshbazzar

"Rome", that is The Roman Church, has made tens of thousands of claims, claimed to be "authoritative" yet most are revealed to be only fables, falsifications, and "romances".
If one is going to reject 99.9% of what The Roman Church claims (as most non- Roman Catholics do) then for what reason would one readily swallow that remaining .01% of her mythology hook, line, and sinker?
If you make her your "authoritative" reference for anything theological, you may as well also accept that other 99.9% of her garbage religious claims.

jules?

well in the first instance the 4 gospels of the canon, other works that had Jesus magically avoid suffering were not included. Appearing human but really spiritual was heresy. I am trying to remember quotes from church fathers that make the point more clearly that their saviour really did live, and was born of mary etc, but it will require me to root around some more. If they turn up I will post.

Doug Shaver

So far as I'm aware, there is no good evidence that any of those books was produced by anything we would recognize as a church.

jules?

But the church choose what was acceptable and what was not

mens_sana

Why?
That there is orange juice in my refrigerator is consistent with the hypothesis that I drink orange juice — but that would be incorrect because the orange juice is for another party. In other words, there are other possibilities, some, perhaps, even more probable.

bopot

Yes it does, you're just dodging it.