Resurrection

[EdgyDolmen]

No disrespect intended. Please correct me.

The Resurrection story is quite befuddling to say the least. The Gospels tell varied and intriguing accounts. There's many places to start but I am confused right off by the disciples being terrified when Jesus appeared before them as described in Luke 24:36.They were certain he was dead. However, Mark 14:50 tells us that no disciple witnessed the previous three days events. Confusing too is when Jesus attempts to convince them that he indeed was resurrected. In Luke 14:38-43 he says, "Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have." In Luke 24:41-43 Jesus further verified his physical body by eating, indicating he required nourishment. Once again confusing.

In Luke 20:34-36 regarding the seven brothers with one wife, Jesus discredited the Sadducees false notion about resurrection -- He said, "they (the brothers) cannot die anymore and are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Did Jesus confirm in Luke 20:34-36 that a resurrected body is in fact a spirit? Taken as a whole is that not confounding the explanation that He was flesh and required nourishment after His Resurection?

 

[donnann]

No disrespect intended. Please correct me.

The Resurrection story is quite befuddling to say the least. The Gospels tell varied and intriguing accounts. There's many places to start but I am confused right off by the disciples being terrified when Jesus appeared before them as described in Luke 24:36.They were certain he was dead. However, Mark 14:50 tells us that no disciple witnessed the previous three days events. Confusing too is when Jesus attempts to convince them that he indeed was resurrected. In Luke 14:38-43 he says, "Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see I have." In Luke 24:41-43 Jesus further verified his physical body by eating, indicating he required nourishment. Once again confusing.

In Luke 20:34-36 regarding the seven brothers with one wife, Jesus discredited the Sadducees false notion about resurrection -- He said, "they (the brothers) cannot die anymore and are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Did Jesus confirm in Luke 20:34-36 that a resurrected body is in fact a spirit? Taken as a whole is that not confounding the explanation that He was flesh and required nourishment after His Resurection?

even angels eat and drink. they are just made up of more light spread out and are much bigger than human beings. the resurrection is when jesus human spirit soul and body were made one. our bodies are not one with our spirit and soul but rather filtered to the body. he had prehuman identity and can at will raise up his human body to reveal his prehuman self.

 

[Thomas]

Hi EdgyDolmen –

... I am confused right off by the disciples being terrified when Jesus appeared before them as described in Luke 24:36. They were certain he was dead.

Yes. 'As if they'd seen a ghost', as the saying goes.

However, Mark 14:50 tells us that no disciple witnessed the previous three days events.

I think you've misinterpreted there. Mark 14:50 says 'Then his disciples leaving him, all fled away'. We don't know how many were there. Presumably the twelve, perhaps more. They stayed at the farm at Gethsemani while Jesus took Peter, James and John and went on to pray.

At the arrest, it was these who fled. Peter followed Jesus, as did John. John was present at the trial. But the group regathered, so there is no reason to assume they had no idea of the events subsequently?

Confusing too is when Jesus attempts to convince them that he indeed was resurrected.

Really? I read it as the idea of a ghost or spirit was acceptable to both Greek and Jew, but physical resurrection was something else altogether.

... In Luke 24:41-43 Jesus further verified his physical body by eating, indicating he required nourishment.

I'm not sure He required nourishment. Rather, they required convincing.

In Luke 20:34-36 regarding the seven brothers with one wife, Jesus discredited the Sadducees false notion about resurrection ... Did Jesus confirm in Luke 20:34-36 that a resurrected body is in fact a spirit?

As you point out, the Sadducees rejected the doctrine of a general resurrection that some Jews believed. But they conceived of it as a continuation of this world into the next. Hence the 'trick' question. Jesus refutes this misunderstanding. Quite how this will manifest is, of course, a matter of speculation.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Thank you Thomas. You have given a very thorough and very knowledgeable reply. I suppose, at best, I am merely a well read "doubting Thomas". I shall ponder your reply. Thanks again.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Remember that it is very doubtful that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Luke, and John were written by them, or that they were in existence much before 150 AD. As for Mark, we have Origen's testimony that the text originally ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. Paul spoke of people seeing Jesus, but he includes himself; since he arrived in Jerusalem nearly a decade later, he must be speaking of visions. We have no contemporary account of anyone seeing a physically resurrected Jesus — only of an empty tomb.

 

[Thomas]

Remember that it is very doubtful that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Luke, and John were written by them...

That's a rather ill-informed sweeping statement.

... or that they were in existence much before 150 AD.

Well that's just plain wrong. 125AD is the terminus ad quem. Scholarly consensus puts them a lot earlier. Your assertion of the latest possible date puts you on the fringes, if not outside scholarship, altogether.

... We have no contemporary account of anyone seeing a physically resurrected Jesus — only of an empty tomb.

How come we have an account of an empty tomb, but not the resurrection, when both are based on the same materials? Why an account of the empty tomb, if not the resurrection?

Let's be frank.

There is no logical reason to believe or disbelieve the Gospels, their reception is a matter of conviction, not critique. Arguing that there are logical reasons not to believe is a nonsense, as all the arguments have been answered. Whether you find those arguments convincing is another matter.

It's the Buddhist 'finger and the moon' thing. In the end you have Wil's argument – even if you were presented with a rock-solid undeniable eye witness, all you've got to do is say that subjective testimonies are fallible ... so there is always a reason not to believe if we need one.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Thomas, I sincerely appreciate your knowledgeable input to this thread. However, I do recognize the quandary proposed by David McCann. The Bible tells stories that span something like 1500 to 1600 years and those stories are most often given as second hand accounts. Some scholars question the dates and question the authors of many OT and NT books.

We can surmise that Constantine's Council had an agenda. They seemed to search for a core theme with few questions about the author or the dates.

It is not my desire to degrade the Bible nor to belittle the beautiful relationship that Christians enjoy. I understand Christians accept without question. At best Christians regard their acceptance as Faith and at the worst they have simply accepted Blaise Pascal's wager. Either way...

 

[wil]

T I understand Christians accept without question.

LOL, well there may be the issue!

there are not hundreds of thousands of books, thirty thousand denominations, because people accept without question....

Every day, every minute, there are people in churches an in schools...questioning their beliefs and the tenants of their faith...

There were hundreds of books (3-400) in circulation at the time of the council, that were being used as religious texts regarding Christianity (you can read a number of them under Apocrypha on this site) One of the purposes of this meeting was to toss out the inappropriate books, the ones not believed to be true... so they culled it down to less than 10%....the jewish canon was accepted, and 27 more books (14 of them supposedly by Paul)...did they get it right? That has been argued ever since...and with the discoveries of dead sea scrolls and Nag Hamadi ... the discussion and number of books on the topic have been increased.

 

[Thomas]

The Bible tells stories that span something like 1500 to 1600 years...

Indeed ... so we really cannot make sweeping statements about the entire text. I assumed we are talking about the Resurrection, so the timescales are markedly different, as is the scholarly approach to the questions raised.

... stories are most often given as second hand accounts. Some scholars question the dates and question the authors of many OT and NT books.

With regard to the NT, whilst there is much scholarly discussion, the support for the more 'sensational' claims are generally dismissed as exaggerations.

We can surmise that Constantine's Council had an agenda. They seemed to search for a core theme with few questions about the author or the dates.

There were no questions because there were no disputes, I don't see its relevance to this dispute.

The Council of Nicea was called to settle the question of the relation of the Son to the Father, discussions in which the Emperor Constantine took no part, and which it has to be said, in the end, failed to achieve its aim.

The idea that Emperors dictated doctrine to the Church is widespread but easily dismissed if one refers to the historical evidence. Some of Constantine's were pagans, some were Arians, but none were unable to force the church to accept their decisions, the torture and death of Pope Martin I by Emperor Constans II stands as proof enough of that.

There are numerous misconceptions with regard to Nicea, and one of those most common is the erroneous view of the council's role in establishing the biblical canon. There is no record nor evidence of any discussion or decision with regard to the canon, which seemed to be largely in place before the close of the second century.

Nicaea dealt primarily with Christology, not Trinity, that was later, although the term Trinity is attributed to Tertullian (d.220), and is used by Origen (d.254), so not, as some assume, the invention of Nicea nor any other Council.

While Constantine sought to head off the Arian dispute that threatened the peace of the empire, he did not play a part in formulating Christological doctrines, or any other church teaching, for that matter.

It is not my desire to degrade the Bible nor to belittle the beautiful relationship that Christians enjoy.

Thanks for that.

I understand Christians accept without question.

Ooh dear, 'without question'? Maybe some denominations demand unquestioning allegiance, but Catholicism? I don't think so!

At best Christians regard their acceptance as Faith and at the worst they have simply accepted Blaise Pascal's wager. Either way...

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense if the implication is that Christians do not or cannot reason their faith, logically, reasonably and rationally. There are too many Christians reckoned among the best minds of their generation to pass that one off without challenge.

I could contend that there are many who ridicule religion and yet demonstrate a 'blind faith' in science as a sufficient reason to dismiss the question.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

All who claim to be Christian in all ><34000 groups accept the Bible as the Word, accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and whole heartedly accept the Resurrection as a fact. Without question! Let's face it Wil. A circular argument can be concocted from any statement!

 

[wil]

Helluva bold statement....

and wrong... (except you working on circular arguments)


Ever heard of the Christian Thomas Jefferson? Read the Jeffersonian Gospels?

I believe you are a victim of our american specific evangelical overlords...thinking that all Christians are like them... it is a big world.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The Council have been brought up so many times since I got here but I can't remember anyone actually posting any indication of what was decided there or there reason for it. I've only read Thomas side of the story (so many times) so the other side might very well be true as far as I know, but so far it seems to be uphold as a matter of faith.

EDIT: Never thought I see you on this side of the argument well!

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Nice post Thomas. One addendum regard Trinity. The 325 AD The Ecumenical Nicene Council said nothing regarding the Trinity but they came back in 381 AD to lay rest to that oversight or blunder. Whichever it may have been. They accomplished composing the first widely accepted Christian creed that began beautifully describing the Trinity.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Wil - As I said, circular. As for ol' Tom. Shoot man. He just ripped out the pages he didn't like. Yep read it. LOL

 

[EdgyDolmen]

Cup - You know there is always three sides to everything

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I bet there will always be more sides than any I can ever find, but I'll always try to find as many as I can. If you don't have a position of your own to defend, at least find a undefended one and fortify your position.

 

[EdgyDolmen]

I bet there will always be more sides than any I can ever find, but I'll always try to find as many as I can. If you don't have a position of your own to defend, at least find a undefended one and fortify your position.

I totally agree...

 

[Thomas]

You see what I mean?

There were hundreds of books (3-400) in circulation at the time of the council that were being used as religious texts regarding Christianity...

LOL! That many?

One of the purposes of this meeting was to toss out the inappropriate books, the ones not believed to be true...

Nah. This is one of those nonsense 'Nicean conspiracy theories'. They're all over the web, but then all manner of nonsense is all over the web ...

... ...and with the discoveries of dead sea scrolls and Nag Hamadi ... the discussion and number of books on the topic have been increased.

Again, most of it nonsense.

No (gnostic) cat amongst the (orthodox) pigeons as so many hoped and assumed, no great revelations, no rewriting of the history books, no tumbling of the walls of Rome, etc,. etc.

 

[wil]

it is what I've remembered....and remembered wrong...thanx.

rereading is interesting...

but yeah...hundreds of books, many lost, many discounted right away.... some came up in the new finds...

 

[Thomas]

Hey A Cup Of Tea –

Check out the wiki entry on The Council of Nicea. It actually covers the ground quite fairly, and cover the 'misconceptions' assumed above ... I can detail the evidence if you want, with links to the surviving documents and outcomes.

As ever, to me it boils down to an opinion based on the evidence v an opinion based on ...