Luke tells us two people were going to Emmaus, one was somebody called Cleopas and the other unnamed. Jesus entertains them to tales of Moses and Abraham. They do not recognise the man as being Jesus, so possibly he is NOT Jesus. Luke introduces some light humour -the man pretends he knows nothing and the two characters tell him what has been happening. Later they eat together and it dawns on the pair that they are with Jesus, not his cousin.
a) Why does some nonentity star in the story?
b) Given the enormity of the reported event, why does Luke keep the identity of the other person a secret?
c) Why would Christ use rumour and doubt rather than astounding clarity to prove he was risen.
d) Is there a case for concluding the resurrection tale is fictional?
Why was Jesus unrecognised?
Moderator: Moderators
-
Zzyzx
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 25089
- Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
- Location: Bible Belt USA
- Has thanked: 40 times
- Been thanked: 73 times
Post #21
.
Excellent. I shall continue to challenge unsupported statements (even though doing so seems to upset some people).JehovahsWitness wrote: I took it that the OP was inviting speculation on the intended meaning of the source text, which I have indeed done. I will of course I await clarification from the original poster (or a moderator) on this matter but until I otherwise instructed I will continue to post my opinions.
.
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
Non-Theist
ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22883
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 898 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
- Contact:
Post #22
Zzyzx wrote: .Excellent. I shall continue to challenge unsupported statements (even though doing so seems to upset some people).JehovahsWitness wrote: I took it that the OP was inviting speculation on the intended meaning of the source text, which I have indeed done. I will of course I await clarification from the original poster (or a moderator) on this matter but until I otherwise instructed I will continue to post my opinions.
I have no problem with that at all. All my opinions can be supported with logic, scripture, historical or
scientific evidence, and/or a dictionary, so they are not "unsupported". If there any statements I have made that you would like further support for please feel free to ask.
Have a good day,
JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:35 am, edited 6 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #23
JehovahsWitness wrote:Zzyzx wrote: .Excellent. I shall continue to challenge unsupported statements (even though doing so seems to upset some people).JehovahsWitness wrote: I took it that the OP was inviting speculation on the intended meaning of the source text, which I have indeed done. I will of course I await clarification from the original poster (or a moderator) on this matter but until I otherwise instructed I will continue to post my opinions.
I have no problem with that, all my factual statements can be supported with scripture, science or a dictionary, so they are not "unsupported".
Scripture is the claim. It can't be both the claim and support for the claim, at least not rationally.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22883
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 898 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
- Contact:
Post #24
Tcg wrote:
Scripture is the claim. It can't be both the claim and support for the claim, at least not rationally.
Tcg
Scripture is the TEXT under analysis. Analysis by definition requires reference to the source. Opinions can and indeed should be based (supported) by contextual and thematic content as well as external historical, archaeological and cultural facts. For example the OP here is asking why the writer contained certain details in the text, and how we as readers might interpret them. In short, the answer as to why the writer(s) said what they did may well lie in clues given within the text itself as well as external facts that may historically have had a bearing on the writers choices.
JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #25
JehovahsWitness wrote:Tcg wrote:
Scripture is the claim. It can't be both the claim and support for the claim, at least not rationally.
Tcg
Scripture is the TEXT under analysis.
Scripture is the TEXT that makes the claim. That TEXT can't also be used to support the claim.
This is the problem so many Christians fail to recognize. Their claim is that scripture supports their claim while failing to recognize that scripture itself is the claim. They are attempting to use their mythology to support the mythology their mythology is based on.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 22883
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 898 times
- Been thanked: 1337 times
- Contact:
Post #26
[Replying to post 25 by Tcg]
I think every post in this thread has made direct reference to scriopture to support the posters opinion and conclusions. For example, Marco suggests that since the disciples in question didn't recognise Jesus, it might not have been Jesus at all. Where did he get that information? From scripture. What did he do with the information, analysed it and suggest a possible conclusion. I do no less and do not see why he may refer to scripture to support his conclusions (whether they be that Jesus was rude to his mother, unduly harsh on the Pharisee or was an instigator of hate crime) but I may not.
Feel free to go back and request the posters remove all such references to the content of scripture if you like. Or you are free to request this be done through the reporting function,
Please have a most excellent day,
Goodbye.
JW
I think every post in this thread has made direct reference to scriopture to support the posters opinion and conclusions. For example, Marco suggests that since the disciples in question didn't recognise Jesus, it might not have been Jesus at all. Where did he get that information? From scripture. What did he do with the information, analysed it and suggest a possible conclusion. I do no less and do not see why he may refer to scripture to support his conclusions (whether they be that Jesus was rude to his mother, unduly harsh on the Pharisee or was an instigator of hate crime) but I may not.
Feel free to go back and request the posters remove all such references to the content of scripture if you like. Or you are free to request this be done through the reporting function,
Please have a most excellent day,
Goodbye.
JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #27
JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 25 by Tcg]
I think every post in this thread has made direct reference to scriopture to support the posters opinion and conclusions.
That doesn't change the fact that I have presented. Scripture can't be both the claim and support for the claim it makes. If others have made that mistake, it doesn't change the fact that it is a mistake.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8667
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2257 times
- Been thanked: 2369 times
Post #28
JehovahsWitness wrote:
Feel free to go back and request the posters remove all such references. Or you are free to request this be done through the reporting function,
As far as I know, it isn't against the rules of this forum to present logically fallacious arguments. I've never read that circular reasoning is against the rules. If I am wrong, please feel free to report yourself for the argument you've presented.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
Re: Why was Jesus unrecognised?
Post #29Mithrae wrote:
Would there be some reason prohibiting a risen Jesus from talking to his uncle, or prohibiting him from doing so while his uncle has a companion?
When once we accept the risen Christ, uncles and aunts have little significance. If Mary can make the sun dance, what can a risen Christ not do?
That is fine. The tale involves a significant early conversation between the risen Christ and two people. They therefore become important, but stay curiously anonymous. I know we can say one of them was Joseph's brother for dramatic effect. The other, figuratively, can represent the unborn millions who anonymously adore Jesus.The argument that those who saw the risen Christ would necessarily rise to great prominence seems rather questionable
Re: Why was Jesus unrecognised?
Post #30Exactly! And so we conclude it was NOT Jesus. It is beautifully creative to imagine the process of Christ being provided with a brand new body, minus the wounds that Thomas was invited to inspect. Perhaps we are introducing too much magic to a situation that has a simple, unmiraculous, explanation. It wasn't Christ's body because it wasn't Christ.JehovahsWitness wrote:
...yet Mary Magdeline mistook him for a gardener doing his rounds, Cleopas and his friend walked with him and noticed nothing unusual about his physique, not a cut up forehead, not slashed arms and neck ...nothing.
