A corpse is a dead body....Jesus resurrected body wasn't a corpse.
It means dead body.
The Resurrection Body of Christ
- Thread starter Sethproton
- Start date
A corpse is a dead body....Jesus resurrected body wasn't a corpse.
It means dead body.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
There are NO (zilch) bible verses that say what you are proposing. No one here ever said that. You are just making things up again.
G
guest1
Guest
Exactly the usual “ projecting “ we have come to expect over the years . Some things never change , especially the arguments or lack thereof.
Sethproton
Well-known member
Yes, I was messing with you. of course in English corpse means a dead body.
But any body without blood is a corpse.
Also, I always acknowledge that Jesus appeared in a tangible body, actually more than one according to Mark, but since no one ever recognized Him, then it is clear that he was not appearing with His old face and voice.
Null and void? Never said anything like that. Christ came back to life that we might live forever with Him. I have never contradicted this. But it is common here when a person does not know how to scripturally, logical address something, they go on to name calling and misrepresentation.
I just don't think the bodies they saw were His eternal, invisible, spiritual body. But for you that means I deny that He was resurrected from death? It shouldn;t.
Also. which scriptures did u think I ignored? I try to address every reasonable idea in any post to me.
Now you are not going to find any scripture saying His corpse was resurrected, but that He was. Afterall, we are not our body and we will continue to exist after death without our body while we wait for the new one on resurrection day
Sethproton
Well-known member
If you don't want to look back thru the thread for the verses, it tells me you are not interested in truth
Sethproton
Well-known member
Yes, it does. I was messing with that poster, Of course a corpse is a dead body, that's what the word means. And this imaginary, bloodless body people talk about would be a corpse.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
Why are you misrepresenting what the other Poster said?
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
I have and as the other posters have noted. . . your EISEGESIS is glaring.
A blast from the past.
The Lyrics based upon what the Bible says:
The Trumpet Shall Sound
The trumpet shall sound
And the dead shall be raised
The dead shall be raised incorruptible
The trumpet shall sound
And the dead shall be raised
Incorruptible
Incorruptible (the dead shall be raised)
Incorruptible
Incorruptible (we shall be changed)
And we shall be changed
Whoa we shall be changed
Whoa whoa... we shall be changed
The trumpet shall sound
The trumpet shall sound
And the dead shall be raised
Raised yea incorruptible, incorruptible
The trumpet shall sound
And we shall be changed
We shall be changed by His love
We shall be changed by His love
The trumpet shall sound
Whoa whoa whoa we shall be changed
We shall be changed incorruptible
The trumpet shall sound
And the dead shall be raised
Incorruptible
Incorruptible the dead shall be raised
Incorruptible whoa whoa incorruptible
They shall be changed
We shall be changed
Whoa we shall be changed
We shall be changed
Whoa whoa we shall be changed
We shall be changed
G
guest1
Guest
G
guest1
Guest
You changed Jesus words from flesh and bones to flesh and blood. And there are 100’s more examples of such things you have done with scripture trusting it all of the time .
You make resurrection mean the opposite of its definition .
You make present tense verbs the past.
And the list hours on and nauseam
@Sethproton
Last edited by a moderator:
Manfred
Well-known member
Of course it was His corpse that was resurrected. The difference between Him and Lazarus is that the corpse of Jesus rose and was glorified. The corruptible become incorruptible.
You glaringly ignore that he was raised in a physical tangible body and contradict yourself immediately by saying it was tangible and physical. Then you say He was nothing more than a corpse like a zombie. How utterly absurd to talk about God who can do anything in that manner.
You are one seriously confused individual. Your conclusions and assertions about a corpse like a mindless zombie walking around and attributing that to the risen Christ is plain blasphemous. If a tangible body that is not a spirit can appear in a locked room, then obviously it has properties we do not yet understand. I don't know why you would find it so incredulous that God who is over all could hide His appearance as He wished.
He revealed Himself in all instances and you think He has no control over that.
Sethproton
Well-known member
If it was His corpse brought back to life, why did no one recognize Him? That is an important question to answer.
And since eternal bodies are invisible, how were they able to see Him?
Also, I do not teach that Jesus walked around in a bloodless, corpselike body.How have you not understood that I am arguing against that not for it?
Again, you side step what i am actually talking about by pretending I have limited God in how He could appear. I have not been talking about God's ability, so please stop acting as if I did.
I am saying you are wrong
I am not saying God is limited
It is based primarily on what we read in the Bible, plus Josephus. I think I have quoted the relevant verses at some point or another. It is conjecture - we cannot know for sure what Paul's exact beliefs were - but conjecture based on the evidence we do have of what people of the time believed up to around AD 70.
Sethproton
Well-known member
Are you saying that we do not have accurate texts? If so, how do you conclude that?
Does it really make sense for some who died in a car crash to be resurrected in their old body, still mangled by the effects of the crash? Or does it make more sense for them to be resurrected in a new spiritual - but still physical - body like that of an angel, that shines brightly like a star? Read the story of the woman with seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. Her sons are mutilated, but do not give up their principles. They expected to be resurrected when the kingdom of God came. Surely they expected to be resurrected in new bodies, not the bodies mutilated at the hands of Antiochus' soldiers.
This seems to be based on the assumption that only the original body can be tangible.
Why do you think it is not possible for God to create a new body of spiritual matter (i.e., some kind of material that is closer to God) that is not tangible?
That certainly fits with a new bod made of spiritual matter. Less so for someone in their original body.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
What difference would it make? You twist scripture almost every time you post.
Manfred
Well-known member
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.
Manfred
Well-known member
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