The most important doctrine in Scripture- The bodily Resurrection of Jesus !

I don't disagree with you. I would say that when considering all Christian doctrines, the evidence is the Trinity doctrine is the most important. I say that because according to Trinitarianism it doesn't matter if someone 'believes' in Jesus' sinless Life, his miracles, his teachings, his shed blood, his crucifixion, his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension. In Christianity, the doctrine of Trinity saves - Jesus is just a by-product. And that's the truth.

Trinitarians call unitarians heretics, apostates, blasphemers, accusing them of not being Christian - passing judgment saying they are condemned.

And so they thereby condemn the unitarian Jesus Christ whose God was the Father alone.
 
.
Jesus left behind instructions for commemorating his death, but to my knowledge
left behind no instructions for commemorating either his birth or his resurrection.

People skilled with sophistry, spin, and double-speak can easily tie his death and
resurrection together in the Lord's Supper; but he didn't.
_
 
.
Jesus left behind instructions for commemorating his death, but to my knowledge
left behind no instructions for commemorating either his birth or his resurrection.

People skilled with sophistry, spin, and double-speak can easily tie his death and
resurrection together in the Lord's Supper; but he didn't.
_
His Resurrection is evidence that His Death fully satisfied the law and justice of God for the sins of His Sheep. His resurrection declared Him and His Sheep Justified before God Rom 4:25

25 who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
 
.
Jesus left behind instructions for commemorating his death, but to my knowledge
left behind no instructions for commemorating either his birth or his resurrection.

People skilled with sophistry, spin, and double-speak can easily tie his death and
resurrection together in the Lord's Supper; but he didn't.
_
What are you suggesting? That we should not give praise to God that Christ resurrected, or that He was born?
 
Is Jesus still a Human; Body, Soul and Spirit?
I don't think so. The Bible does not state He is still a man.
Though the strongest evidence that He might still be a man, are His resurrection appearances in human bodies. None of them were the body He died in, but I understand why someone would think He is still a man.
There are about 8 or 10 passages that changed my thinking on this.
It is an interesting discussion if you are interested.
 
I don't think so. The Bible does not state He is still a man.
Though the strongest evidence that He might still be a man, are His resurrection appearances in human bodies. None of them were the body He died in, but I understand why someone would think He is still a man.
There are about 8 or 10 passages that changed my thinking on this.
It is an interesting discussion if you are interested.
We've been discussing this for years, as you know; unless you forget it's me...

What verse do you use to show that Christ's Resurrection Body is not the body which was buried? I will require practically a verbatim verse to believe otherwise, since there is a verbatim verse which tells us Jesus showed himself Alive with a Wounded body of flesh...
 
Last edited:
We've been discussing this for years, as you know; unless you forget it's me...

What verse do you use to show that Christ's Resurrection Body is not the body which was buried? I will require practically a verbatim verse to believe otherwise, since there is a verbatim verse which tells us Jesus showed himself Alive with a Wounded body of flesh...
Look at every single recorded appearance. Nobody ever recognizes His face or voice.
There is never an explanation as to why they do not recognize Him.
Always, some ways into the meeting, they suddenly know who He is.
 
Look at every single recorded appearance. Nobody ever recognizes His face or voice.
That's a good inference, but it's not good enough inference to undermine the inference of Jesus saying his body is flesh and to touch his wounds. If we can use inference from other verses, we can use the inference from Christ saying he has a flesh and bone body, on the verses you offer in rebuttal to Christ's claim...

In the case of the Bodily Resurrection, I think you need a verbatim verse to corroborate you; because this is said to be a Salvific matter...
 
That's a good inference, but it's not good enough inference to undermine the inference of Jesus saying his body is flesh and to touch his wounds. If we can use inference from other verses, we can use the inference from Christ saying he has a flesh and bone body, on the verses you offer in rebuttal to Christ's claim...

In the case of the Bodily Resurrection, I think you need a verbatim verse to corroborate you; because this is said to be a Salvific matter...
That is not the whole of it. I said I know 8 or 10 verses that teach truths that tell us what happened.
But please be clear. I am not offering any rebuttal to anything Christ said. Do you have a quote from Jesus stating that his resurrected body is human and that He is still human? If not, then don't claim that I am contradicting Jesus.

But I have to say this, you at least see that what i told you about Him not being recognized could be inferred to mean that the bodies they saw post resurrection were none of them the body He died in. Grasping that is a start.

If you are interested I will bring up another passage that adds to this.
 
That is not the whole of it. I said I know 8 or 10 verses that teach truths that tell us what happened.
But please be clear. I am not offering any rebuttal to anything Christ said. Do you have a quote from Jesus stating that his resurrected body is human and that He is still human? If not, then don't claim that I am contradicting Jesus.

But I have to say this, you at least see that what i told you about Him not being recognized could be inferred to mean that the bodies they saw post resurrection were none of them the body He died in. Grasping that is a start.

If you are interested I will bring up another passage that adds to this.
I'm going to call it a night here; it looks like it's getting good on the A/C Board. Recognizing inferences goes both ways Seth. As far as verses go, they exist. But I remember this topic on the old Forum going for at least 10 Threads in a row with each Thread having between 1, 000 - 1,500 posts in them...
 
Look at every single recorded appearance. Nobody ever recognizes His face or voice.
There is never an explanation as to why they do not recognize Him.
Always, some ways into the meeting, they suddenly know who He is.
The Bible does not specifically tell us why the followers of Christ did not always recognize Jesus after His resurrection. As a result, some of the following is speculation. Keeping this in mind, there are a few things that might have contributed to the disciples not recognizing Jesus immediately when He first appeared to them after His resurrection. First, even though Jesus had predicted that He would rise again on the third day, the disciples did not fully understand (Mark 9:32), because clearly they were not looking for Him to be resurrected. This can account for some of their surprise and shock at seeing Him.

One of the instances where Jesus was not recognized was Mary Magdalene’s coming to the tomb early in the morning (John 20:15). Instead of recognizing Jesus, she first mistook Him for the gardener. One thing that is important to remember is that we do not know how far Mary was from Jesus when she misidentified Him. It could be that she was simply too far to clearly recognize who He was until He spoke to her. Second, we must remember that since it was very early in the morning, the light would not have been very bright which could also have made it more difficult for her to see Him clearly. When we couple that with the fact that she was not expecting to see Him alive, it is easy to see why she did not recognize Him from a distance until He spoke to her.

A second instance in which Jesus was not immediately recognized was when the disciples did not recognize Him when they were out fishing (John 21:4). This could also be related to the distance Jesus might have been from them. A third instance is when the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) did not recognize Jesus until He broke bread. How could these two disciples have walked, talked, and eaten with Jesus without recognizing Him? In this instance, it seems that they were supernaturally prevented from recognizing Jesus. Jesus perhaps had taken on a different appearance to keep Himself from being recognized. Why would Jesus have done this? The Bible does not say. Perhaps Jesus “veiled” His identity so the two disciples would truly think through the things Jesus was saying, rather than accepting the teaching blindly, as they likely would have if they had known it was Jesus.got?

hope this helps !!!
 
I'm going to call it a night here; it looks like it's getting good on the A/C Board. Recognizing inferences goes both ways Seth. As far as verses go, they exist. But I remember this topic on the old Forum going for at least 10 Threads in a row with each Thread having between 1, 000 - 1,500 posts in them...
It actually had close to 20 renditions lol. sithproton cannot handle the truth below because he denies the Resurrection. He is forced to act like a skeptic since He denies the bodily Resurrection of Christ.

Many have been intrigued by the fact that the followers of Jesus did not always immediately recognize Him after His resurrection. The Gospels record three such instances.

John 20:15 reveals that Mary Magdalene was weeping at Jesus' empty tomb when Jesus asked her what was wrong. She assumed He was the gardener and asked where the body had been taken. When He spoke her name, Mary recognized Him as Jesus (John 20:16). In this case, she may have been weeping with her face down and did not immediately realize the person with her was Jesus. The text is unclear with the exception that Jesus had asked her why she was weeping and that Mary recognized His voice when He spoke to her by name.

Luke 24:13-35 records two disciples who walked from Jerusalem to Emmaus on the day of the resurrection. Their names are not mentioned but they were not part of the eleven (Luke 24:33). Luke 24:15-16 states, "While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing him." In this case it seems that God kept the men from recognizing Jesus as they walked with Him along the road and explained the Scriptures to them. That night, however, Jesus ate with them and "their eyes were opened, and they recognized him" (Luke 24:31). We can only surmise why God would veil the men's eyes – perhaps so they would fully consider what Jesus was teaching about the Scripture – but it is clear that it was God's will for Jesus not to be recognized for a time in this particular instance.

John 21 talks about seven disciples who fished all night and caught nothing. At break of day, while they were still out on the water, Jesus spoke from the shore, asking them about their fishing trip. He then told them to cast their net on the right side of the boat. When they did, 153 fish were caught. John first recognized the man as Jesus, and Peter immediately jumped in the water and swam to Him. In this case, Jesus may have originally been too far away to recognize at first, though the text is uncertain on this matter.

Based on these three accounts, only the second one, the disciples walking with Jesus to Emmaus, requires a supernatural explanation. Jesus used the time He was unrecognizable by the men to explain how the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah had been fulfilled in His own life. These two men immediately returned to the disciples in Jerusalem, who also confirmed seeing Jesus alive. Their testimony confirmed the accounts of Peter and the women who saw Jesus at the tomb; and Jesus appeared to the disciples that evening.

These accounts reveal that the appearances of Jesus to His followers were unexpected and supernatural. Such accounts help to disprove alternative theories that seek to dispute the resurrection. Jesus did not merely pass out and revive, nor did His followers anticipate seeing Him alive three days after He was crucified. In addition, many of these followers both served Christ and died for their belief that Jesus is alive.compellingtruth.

hope this helps !!!
 
That is not the whole of it. I said I know 8 or 10 verses that teach truths that tell us what happened.
But please be clear. I am not offering any rebuttal to anything Christ said. Do you have a quote from Jesus stating that his resurrected body is human and that He is still human? If not, then don't claim that I am contradicting Jesus.

But I have to say this, you at least see that what i told you about Him not being recognized could be inferred to mean that the bodies they saw post resurrection were none of them the body He died in. Grasping that is a start.

If you are interested I will bring up another passage that adds to this.
Jesus said He is the son of man. The son of man means in Hebrew to have the nature of man, a descendant of man. Man was created a body,soul and spirit. Since Jesus is rerturning at His 2nd Coming as the Son of man He is still human with a real body of flesh and bones just as He said He is in Luke 24.

Lets examine some of Jesus declarations about being the son of man (adam, humanity, a human being). He used this term describing His death, burial and Resurrection from the dead. He also used this phrase about His future Kingdom, Reign and Judgment at the end of the age. This would mean that Jesus not only considered Himself to be human while He walked this earth but also in the future at His 2nd Coming in Judgment. He also describes Himself at the right hand of God as a human post Resurrection/ Ascension.

"Son of man" is a common term in the Psalms, used to accentuate the difference between God and human beings. As in Ps. viii. 4 (A. V. 5), the phrase implies "mortality," "impotence," "transientness,"as against the omnipotence and eternality of God. Yhwh looks down from His throne in heaven upon the "children," or "sons," of "man" (Ps. xi. 4, xxxiii. 13). The faithful fail among them (Ps. xii. 2 [A. V. 1]); the seed of Yhwh's enemies will not abide among the "children of men" (Ps. xxi. 10). "Children of men" is thus equivalent to "mankind" (Ps. xxxvi. 8 [A. V. 7], lxvi. 5).
"Sons of men," or "children of men," designates also the slanderers and evil-doers in contrast to the righteous, that is, Israel (Ps. lvii. 5 [A. V. 4], lviii. 2 [A. V. 1]). It occurs most frequently, however, as a synonym for "mankind," "the human race" (Ps. xc. 3, cvii. 8, cxv. 16, cxlv. 12); it has this sense also in the passage in which wisdom is said to delight with the "sons of men" (Prov. viii. 31). Job(xvi. 21) employs the expression in the passionate plea for his rights while he is contending against God and against his neighbors. But Bildad insists that the "son of man," who is a mere worm, can not be justified with God (Job xxv. 4-6). In the same spirit the prophet (Isa. li. 12) censures Israel for being afraid of "the son of man which shall be made as grass" when Yhwh is their Comforter; but in Isa. lvi. 2-3 the Sabbath is extolled as making the "son of man" (i.e., any man, regardless of birth) blessed; indeed, God has His eyes "open upon all the ways of the sons of men: to give every one according to his ways" (Jer. xxxii. 19). Jewish Encyclopedia

hope this helps !!!
 
That is not the whole of it. I said I know 8 or 10 verses that teach truths that tell us what happened.
But please be clear. I am not offering any rebuttal to anything Christ said. Do you have a quote from Jesus stating that his resurrected body is human and that He is still human? If not, then don't claim that I am contradicting Jesus.

But I have to say this, you at least see that what i told you about Him not being recognized could be inferred to mean that the bodies they saw post resurrection were none of them the body He died in. Grasping that is a start.

If you are interested I will bring up another passage that adds to this.
Romans 1:1-4

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Concerning his Son - This is connected with the first verse, with the word "gospel." The gospel of God concerning his Son. The design of the gospel was to make a communication relative to his Son Jesus Christ. This is the whole of it. There is no "good news" to man respecting salvation except what comes by Jesus Christ.

Which was made - The word translated "was made" means usually "to be," or "to become." It is used, however, in the sense of being born. Thus, Galatians 4:4, "God sent forth his Son made of a woman," born of a woman. John 8:58, "before Abraham was (born), I am." In this sense it seems to be used here, who was born, or descended from the seed of David.

Of the seed of David - Of the posterity or lineage of David. He was a descendant of David. David was perhaps the most illustrious of the kings of Israel. The promise to him was that there should not fail a man to sit on this throne; 1 Kings 2:4; 1 Kings 8:25; 1 Kings 9:5; 2 Chronicles 6:16. This ancient promise was understood as referring to the Messiah, and hence, in the New Testament he is called the descendant of David, and so much pains is taken to show that he was of his line; Luke 1:27; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 12:23; Matthew 21:9, Matthew 21:15; Matthew 22:42, Matthew 22:45; John 7:42; 2 Timothy 2:8. As the Jews universally believed that the Messiah would be descended from David John 7:42, it was of great importance for the sacred writers to make it out clearly that Jesus of Nazareth was of that line and family. Hence, it happened, that though our Saviour was humble, and poor, and obscure, yet he had that on which no small part of the world have been accustomed so much to pride themselves, an illustrious ancestry. To a Jew there could be scarcely any honor so high as to be descended from the best of their kings; and it shows how little the Lord Jesus esteemed the honors of this world, that he could always evince his deep humility in circumstances where people are usually proud; and that when he spoke of the honors of this world, and told how little they were worth, he was not denouncing what was not within his reach.

According to the flesh - The word "flesh," σάρξ sarx, is used in the Scriptures in a great variety of significations.

(1) it denotes, as with us, the flesh literally of any living being; Luke 24:39, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones," etc.

(2) the animal system, the body, including flesh and bones, the visible part of man, in distinction from the invisible, or the soul; Acts 2:31, "Neither did his flesh (his body) "see corruption." 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39.

(3) the man, the whole animated system, body and soul; Romans 8:3, "In the likeness of sinful flesh. 1 Corinthians 15:50; Matthew 16:17; Luke 3:6.

(4) human nature. As a man. Thus, Acts 2:30, "God hath sworn with an oath that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, that is, in his human nature, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." Romans 9:5, "whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." The same is its meaning here. He was a descendant of David in his human nature, or as a man. This implies, of course, that he had another nature besides his human, or that while he was a man he was also something else; that there was a nature in which he was not descended from David.

That this is its meaning will still further appear by the following observations.

(1) the apostle expressly makes a contrast between his condition according to the flesh, and that according to the spirit of holiness.

(2) the expression "according to the flesh" is applied to no other one in the New Testament but to Jesus Christ. Though the word "flesh" often occurs, and is often used to denote man, yet the special expression, "according to the flesh" occurs in no other connection.

In all the Scriptures it is never said of any prophet or apostle, any lawgiver or king, or any man in any capacity, that he came in the flesh, or that he was descended from certain ancestors according to the flesh. Nor is such an expression ever used any where else. If it were applied to a mere man, we should instantly ask in what other way could he come than in the flesh? Has he a higher nature? Is he an angel, or a seraph? The expression would be unmeaningful. And when, therefore, it is applied to Jesus Christ, it implies, if language has any meaning, that there was a sense in which Jesus was not descended from David. What that was, appears in the next verse.barnes

hope this helps !!!
 
I'm going to call it a night here; it looks like it's getting good on the A/C Board. Recognizing inferences goes both ways Seth. As far as verses go, they exist. But I remember this topic on the old Forum going for at least 10 Threads in a row with each Thread having between 1, 000 - 1,500 posts in them...
Yes,enjoy.
But I will tell you one other verse that struck me. Perhaps someone else will benefit by it.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

John had seen Jesus after the resurrection, saw Him a few times, yet when asked what our resurrection body would be like he says he doesn't know.
Why doesn't John know? He saw Jesus off and on for 40 days after the resurrection.
The answer is that a spiritual body is not a flesh and blood body. Flesh and blood is not made for eternity. So the different bodies that John saw were just for the purpose of Jesus letting them know He came back to life, but according to John, it was not to show us what our eternal bodies will look like, only to assure us that He did indeed escape death.
 
Last edited:
Yes,enjoy.
But I will tell you one other verse that struck me. Perhaps someone else will benefit by it.
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

John had seen Jesus after the resurrection, saw Him a few times, yet when asked what our resurrection body would be like he says he doesn't know.
Why doesn't John know? He saw Jesus off and on for 40 days after the resurrection.
The answer is that a spiritual body is not a flesh and blood body. Flesh and blood is not made for eternity. So the different bodies that John saw were just for the purpose of Jesus letting them know He came back to life, but according to John, it was not to show us what our eternal bodies will look like, only to assure us that He did indeed escape death.
That is also a good inference but it goes too far into speculation. There is no need to adjust a Flesh and Bone body to a disembodied Spirit after it's established by Jesus as a body. Israel will appear before God and see the one they Pierced, this is also a good inference which sides with Christ's Bodily Resurrection and his Bodily presence in Heaven. Since Spirits don't have a body of flesh, a Spirit doesn't have Mortal wounds for Israel to see...

Remember; we're being Gracious to one another and recognizing Inferences. I hope that continues but it can never be onesided...
 
That is also a good inference but it goes too far into speculation. There is no need to adjust a Flesh and Bone body to a disembodied Spirit after it's established by Jesus as a body. Israel will appear before God and see the one they Pierced, this is also a good inference which sides with Christ's Bodily Resurrection and his Bodily presence in Heaven. Since Spirits don't have a body of flesh, a Spirit doesn't have Mortal wounds for Israel to see...

Remember; we're being Gracious to one another and recognizing Inferences. I hope that continues but it can never be onesided...
You missed the point. After having seen Christ after the resurrection, seeing Him in a body, John states that He does not know what that body is like. Address that,

Also your phrase "disembodied spirit" means one of two things
1, You did not read what I said, as I never mentioned any disembodied spirit
2. You did read and intentionally made it look like I spoke of a disembodied spirit

Or is there a third? Why did you characterize my post that way?
 
Back
Top