Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 11-28-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The only group that disputed that Jesus had a real physical existence,death and resurrection were the Gnostics

This totally fails to take into account the Jewish-Christians who didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus, didn't accept his immaculate conception or his divinity.

GakuseiDon · 11-28-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

. . .. But their use of 'spiritual' body is not quite the way we see it. "Spiritual" bodies were still physical, but they were made of non-corruptible material, like air, fire or ether.

...

In what way is a body made out of air or ether a physical body?

"Physical" in the sense that they were made out of something material/elemental.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-29-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The only group that disputed that Jesus had a real physical existence, death and resurrection were the Gnostics.

On the contrary, the vast majority of Jews have never believed that Jesus rose from the dead. In addition, no rational person would claim that the majority of first century Romans believed that Jesus rose from the dead, or even that 5% of first century Romans believed that Jesus rose from the dead.

If Jesus did rise from the dead, it is interesting that he chose to withhold that evidence from Roman officials in Palestine. Such being the case, one wonders why he appeared to anyone at all since appearing to Roman officials in Palestine would have advanced Christianity much faster than was the case.

Uncle Menno · 11-29-2008, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Menno

And there is certainly no passage anywhere that states unequivocally that Jesus's resurrected body was nothing other than the body he had before his death.

The empty tomb, as written by the authors of the NT and the church writers, clearly and unequivocally shows that these writers believed or wanted their readers to think that Jesus did indeed come back to life with the same body that was crucified.

Yes, they all agreed that Jesus had been "raised from the dead" and the empty tomb was part of the adduced evidence that Jesus had indeed been raised from the dead.

But your insistence that Jesus had exactly and only the same body as he did before he was crucified is your own interpretation--one that doesn't square with other NT accounts. The Apostle Paul agrees that Jesus was raised from the dead, but flatly denies that his resurrected body was the same as his "natural" body.

Until your explanation accounts for the Apostle Paul's position, it is incomplete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And in addition, after the so-called resurrection, there are these passage in John 20.29

It is extremely clear that the authors of the NT and the church writers endorsed or wanted the readers to believe that the same person that was crucified did rise after crucifixion with the same body.

Again, until your explanation accounts for Paul's explicit denial that it was the "same body", it remains incomplete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menno

The accounts about the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion are filled with mysteries: on the one hand, he ate and drank like a "normal" person, but on the other, he could move through closed doors and otherwise appear and disappear at will, which no "normal" eater and drinker could ever do and which he is not recorded as having done before the crucifixion. He "walked" for several miles and hours alongside people who claimed that they knew him well, yet they failed to recognize him--in fact, the scripture suggests that they didn't merely fail, they were actively impeded from recognizing him. (Luke 24:16) If his exact physical body had been reanimated, why couldn't they recognize him immediately?

You are confusing the capabilities of Gods and the bodily resurrection. When Jesus was on earth, according to the authors he could transfigure, that is, he could change his appearance at will.

The scriptures are clear that it was the observers who were stopped from recognizing him on the road to Emmaus. Young's Literal Translation says that "their eyes were holden so as not to know him." There is no indication there that Jesus changed his appearance; the problem was in the beholders' eyes.

Beyond that, can you give me a cite from the canonical gospels in which Jesus is recorded as having changed his appearance at will? Note well that in the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke known as "the Transfiguration", the verbs consistently are in the passive voice, indicating that Jesus was being acted upon, not that he was changing by an act of will on his part.

luminous · 12-29-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

When the church got strong enough to affect policy, one of its very first moves was to eliminate both its critics and all of their writings.

Can you provide any good sources which show that the early church supressed the writings of their critics?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.