The Resurrection Body of Christ

T

The Pixie

Well-known member
Manfred said:
No it does not.

The Bible shows that the corruptible will become incorruptible. That we will be changed in the blink of an eye.
God is capable to to present this body of His making in any manner He chooses. The Bible is silent on it.
Click to expand...
Agreed - though "we will be changed in the blink of an eye" refers to those still alive at the time.

So why would the risen Jesus have the marks of crucifixion? Read what Paul reported seeing in Acts:

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

To me, that is someone made of spiritual matter, not flesh and blood.

Thomas did not believe that Jesus was risen. Jesus showed Him what he needed to see to believe. The Biblical account is that at that precise time, Jesus appeared among them, and said that He was not a spirit, but that He had "flesh and bones" and could be touched. Then He said to Thomas, look and see it is I.
So why did Thomas not recognize Him but accepted it was Him based on the evidence Jesus showed him. Unbelief and doubt, comes to mind.
Why the other poster who claims to believe in the supernatural thinks this is going to far in terms of what God can do is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I think the most likely explanation is that the scene between Jesus and Thomas was made up later. It does not appear in the earlier gospels. Paul's all-too-brief summary in 1 Cor 15 indicates Jesus appeared first to Peter, then to all twelve disciples - no suggestion Thomas was missing for that second appearance.

I appreciate you will reject this out of hand, but I believe this and related accounts in Matthew and Luke were made up to emphasise that Jesus really was risen (and I do emphasise that they did believe that) rather than being a mere ghost or spirit.
 
J

JosephLeo

Active member
Sethproton said:
As I understand this particular thread, the posters here are not necessarily Christian, but I thought it might be interesting to put some ideas out here about the Bible.
This one is about the kind of body Christ got after He died and resurrected. While it is not a standard Christian idea, the Bible has many verses that tell a different story from standard Christianity.
When He died, He left that body behind in the tomb and His soul went to the place of the dead. When he resurrected, He received a body from heaven and His old fleshly body was disposed of.
One of the first clues in the Bible was that when He resurrected and appeared to those who knew Him, nobody recognized Him by His face or voice.
This irritates Christians, but it seems to be what the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...

In this order:

1) Resurrection, like Lazarus resurrection. Still in original form. Mint condition.
2) Ascension, a.k.a rapture -- from mortal to immortality. This is where the transformation begins, returning to his original eternal state, before he became flesh and blood. The Word became became flesh, but in reverse -- the flesh became the Word.
 
G

guest1

Guest
Beloved Daughter said:
This looks like name calling to me. Is it?

We have come to know that you cannot properly exegete scripture. When we point that out your response is to name call.

I'm sorry you cannot believe what the scriptures actually say.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% as does everyone else on the Christian Forums.
 
Beloved Daughter

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
The Pixie said:
Okay... But that does not make the accusation of name-calling in respect of that post true.
Click to expand...
Go back and look at that post again. It's clear as day that the poster's words were deleted by a moderator. I did not report it so, someone else did. Just sayin'.
Beloved Daughter said:
This looks like name calling to me. Is it?

We have come to know that you cannot properly exegete scripture. When we point that out your response is to name call.

I'm sorry you cannot believe what the scriptures actually say.
Click to expand...
It's post 176.
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
The Pixie said:
Apologies if this derails the thread, but you asked the question...

I believe the texts are broadly accurate in that they are as the author wrote them - with some exceptions, such as the endings of Mark and John - but not so much in terms of what actually happened. The gospel authors wrote what they believed to be true, but over the decades the stories about Jesus had become more fanciful and they added their own perspective and politics. I do not believe any of the authors were eye witnesses; all relied on second or third hand accounts, as Luke admits up front.

This is why there are some important contradictions. Mark says the women finding the tomb never told anyone, Matthew says they immediately told the disciples. Mark says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee, later gospel say Jesus was first seen in Jerusalem, and Luke even has Jesus telling the disciples not to leave Jerusalem. Each gospel gives a snapshot in time of the evolving story.

Why does Luke not recount Jesus appearing to Peter? It is clear Luke is aware of this first appearance of the risen Jesus, but he has chosen to omit it from the narrative. Luke was a follower of Paul, and Paul and Peter had some big disagreements - was Luke trying to play down Peter's status?

Why does the Gospel of John not mention James at all? He was Jesus' brother and the leader of the disciples after Jesus left, but does not rate a mention? Again, I suspect politics at play.
Click to expand...
I don't mind sidetracks, but it comes across that you feel that you have deduced most of this, Of course Luke was different from the others there, he was not present while Jesus was alive. He gathered all His gospel from witnesses.
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
Manfred said:
You should study Christophanies in the OT to get some clue instead of all these meaningless questions.

Why did God only appear to some, not to those who killed Him
Why should God be unable to hide his identity and at the right time reveal himself as Jesus did with the two Disciples on their way to Emmaus.
Why do you presume an eternal body is invisible and cannot be revealed, as shown by Jesus appearing among the Disciples
Your argument presumes a that a physical resurrections implies a zombie like corpse wandering around aimlessly. It does not. So your argument is that if the resurrection was physical then it would be..... x .... so yes, those are your stupid assumptions.
Your very first question limits God in how He can appear. You say "If it was His corpse brought back to life, why did no one recognize Him? That is an important question to answer." Thereby limiting God.
You claim you have not been talking about God's ability, yet you limit Him at every turn and put man in charge of how Jesus should appear and what He should look like, and that He should be recognized etc. etc. etc.
Your saying that I am wrong, does not make you right.
Of course you are limiting God as shown
Click to expand...
The questions are not meaningless, but if you have no answers just admit it and we can move on.
I have studied Christophanies in the OT and while there were tangible bodies they were not meant to stay upon the earth beyond the appearance. And if you understand this then you understand the concept of making an appearance in a body as opposed to heb 10"5 saying that God prepared a body for Jesus, to be used as a sacrifice, not to dwell in eternally.
Now honestly some of you questions seem to fall into the category you accused me of: meaningless. And from experience here, I am fully aware that when I answer them you will either ignore the answers or make some demeaning remark about me,
1. We do not know how God chose who He would appear to, as far as I know, no scripture addresses this
2. your question assumes something I never said. of course God can hide His identity
3. I "presume" and eternal body is invisible because the Bible states that they are. I believe I already quoted verses, but if you need me to I will do it again
4. Again, you are not paying attention to what i am saying, I DO NOT think a physical resurrection creates a zombie. What I said is the idea that Jesus was in a bloodless body creates a zombie.
5.Asking why no one recognized Jesus does not limit God. That is a different argument. Again God can do what ever He wants, so the chat is not about what God CAN do? It is about what He DID do.
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
Manfred said:
No it does not.

The Bible shows that the corruptible will become incorruptible. That we will be changed in the blink of an eye.
God is capable to to present this body of His making in any manner He chooses. The Bible is silent on it.

Thomas did not believe that Jesus was risen. Jesus showed Him what he needed to see to believe. The Biblical account is that at that precise time, Jesus appeared among them, and said that He was not a spirit, but that He had "flesh and bones" and could be touched. Then He said to Thomas, look and see it is I.
So why did Thomas not recognize Him but accepted it was Him based on the evidence Jesus showed him. Unbelief and doubt, comes to mind.
Why the other poster who claims to believe in the supernatural thinks this is going to far in terms of what God can do is beyond me.
Click to expand...
It is a sad practice here to misrepresent what people say and the ridicule them for something they never said.
Again, I have never based any arguments on claiming something is too far for God.
Why not discuss actual points instead of straw men?
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
The Pixie said:
Agreed - though "we will be changed in the blink of an eye" refers to those still alive at the time.

So why would the risen Jesus have the marks of crucifixion? Read what Paul reported seeing in Acts:

3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

To me, that is someone made of spiritual matter, not flesh and blood.


I think the most likely explanation is that the scene between Jesus and Thomas was made up later. It does not appear in the earlier gospels. Paul's all-too-brief summary in 1 Cor 15 indicates Jesus appeared first to Peter, then to all twelve disciples - no suggestion Thomas was missing for that second appearance.

I appreciate you will reject this out of hand, but I believe this and related accounts in Matthew and Luke were made up to emphasise that Jesus really was risen (and I do emphasise that they did believe that) rather than being a mere ghost or spirit.
Click to expand...
I like what you said about Paul experiencing Jesus as light, instead of as a physical body.
And while I don't know what to make of Jesus showing Thomas his scars, it seems evident that He did not have all the scars, and that a being of light would not have scars
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
JosephLeo said:
In this order:

1) Resurrection, like Lazarus resurrection. Still in original form. Mint condition.
2) Ascension, a.k.a rapture -- from mortal to immortality. This is where the transformation begins, returning to his original eternal state, before he became flesh and blood. The Word became became flesh, but in reverse -- the flesh became the Word.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Jesus resurrected back to his body of flesh and then at the ascension He received a heavenly body?
 
T

The Pixie

Well-known member
Sethproton said:
I don't mind sidetracks, but it comes across that you feel that you have deduced most of this, Of course Luke was different from the others there, he was not present while Jesus was alive. He gathered all His gospel from witnesses.
Click to expand...
I do not believe any gospel writers were eye witnesses. There is no suggestion in the gospel accounts that Mark was there, and I do not believe Matthew or John authors the works attributed to them, though it is possible they wrote material that was used in them. The evidence from Papias that Matthew was the author actually says Matthew write a text in Hebrew; the gospel we have was originally written in Greek. For John, it is less conclusive, but the late writing and the attitude towards "the Jews", plus a tradition that John was martyred, argue against it.
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
The Pixie said:
I do not believe any gospel writers were eye witnesses. There is no suggestion in the gospel accounts that Mark was there, and I do not believe Matthew or John authors the works attributed to them, though it is possible they wrote material that was used in them. The evidence from Papias that Matthew was the author actually says Matthew write a text in Hebrew; the gospel we have was originally written in Greek. For John, it is less conclusive, but the late writing and the attitude towards "the Jews", plus a tradition that John was martyred, argue against it.
Click to expand...
I must admit that some of what you say, I know nothing about, but I do find one particular idea preposterous, that the church would accept any of their letters to be altered once they had them, or that the church would allow a letter from an unknown person to be included in what they held to
 
T

The Pixie

Well-known member
Sethproton said:
I must admit that some of what you say, I know nothing about, but I do find one particular idea preposterous, that the church would accept any of their letters to be altered once they had them, or that the church would allow a letter from an unknown person to be included in what they held to
Click to expand...
Actually the oldest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-19, and some Bibles even say so, so we know that was a later addition. Similarly John 7:53-8:11 is not in the oldest manuscripts - it is a later addition.

I would go further and say that Matthew was produced as a reworking of Mark, a second edition if you like, with large amounts of text added, rather than as a new gospel; it just so happens we have the first edition text too.
 
S

Sethproton

Well-known member
The Pixie said:
Actually the oldest manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-19, and some Bibles even say so, so we know that was a later addition. Similarly John 7:53-8:11 is not in the oldest manuscripts - it is a later addition.

I would go further and say that Matthew was produced as a reworking of Mark, a second edition if you like, with large amounts of text added, rather than as a new gospel; it just so happens we have the first edition text too.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have heard these ideas but it makes me wonder how that would have worked.
How do you suddenly come to the church with a new version and everyone just says "ok"?
The churches had these documents and any additions or deletions and especially any new books would have been rejected.
Who would have been adding stuff and why didn't the church care?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top