Body or no?

[nobspeople]

In reading through the below article, it seems there's a divisive ideology over rather the body of jesus was physically raised at the resurrection or not.
For discussion:
Do you believe jesus physically rose or not?
Why does it matter one way or the other?
Or does it not matter and why?



https://www.yahoo.com/news/baptists-hol ... 43339.html

[nobspeople]

Why do you think god would allow the body to remain to be disposed of later, instead of being risen?

I didnt say "later", since the body was not in the tomb when the disciples arrived, it is reasonable to conclude it was disposed of "earlier rather than later", sometime after Friday evening but before Sunday morning.

Jesus body would have been in a terrible condition and there would have been no point in using it just To prove he was alive.


JW

Earlier or later doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[nobspeople]

But it also says:
Then he said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. ... the marks of the nails in Jesus' hands and the pierced hole on his side (John 19:34).
And:
Jesus tells Mary, “Touch Me not” (John 20:17, KJV)
Was this appearance not real?
If the gospels are actual accounts (or telling of accounts), shouldn't they have more weight behind them than something like Pete (as it was not a gospel)?

There is no need to put Peter against the gospels, if one gives the matter sufficient thought and ask the right questions.

You seem to be picking and choosing to fit your chosen lifestyle agenda. Which is fine, of course, so long as it's accepted.
If the bible is the word of god, as many claim (or inspired word of god) then it, indeed, matters.

Yet again, you overlooked the other questions. If you don't answer them now, it would be assumed you can't. Which is, of course fine as well, as you seem to 'overlook' passages in the bible that seem to contradict your chosen belief:

If it was shown (or someone else can show biblical proof) that jesus rose physically, would it change your belief system in any way? Why or why not?
As you don't believe there was a physical rising, how do you account for other groups' belief of a physical rising?
Why do you think god would allow the body to remain to be disposed of later, instead of being risen?

[JehovahsWitness]

If it was shown (or someone else can show biblical proof) that jesus rose physically, would it change your belief system in any way? Why or why not?

As you don't believe there was a physical rising, how do you account for other groups' belief of a physical rising?

Why do you think god would allow the body to remain to be disposed of later, instead of being risen?

I have already addressed these questions, was there something else you wanted to ask me?

[nobspeople]

If it was shown (or someone else can show biblical proof) that jesus rose physically, would it change your belief system in any way? Why or why not?

As you don't believe there was a physical rising, how do you account for other groups' belief of a physical rising?

Why do you think god would allow the body to remain to be disposed of later, instead of being risen?

I have already addressed these questions, was there something else you wanted to ask me?

Please show exactly where these have been addressed as I must have missed them

[JehovahsWitness]

Please show exactly where these have been addressed as I must have missed them

HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1063452#p1063452

...and here
viewtopic.php?p=1063455#p1063455

[nobspeople]

Please show exactly where these have been addressed as I must have missed them

HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1063452#p1063452

...and here
viewtopic.php?p=1063455#p1063455

Ah great - thank you. Yes it seems I missed them. I'll address them if necessary

[nobspeople]

But it also says:
Then he said to Thomas, "Reach here your finger, and see my hands. ... the marks of the nails in Jesus' hands and the pierced hole on his side (John 19:34).
And:
Jesus tells Mary, “Touch Me not” (John 20:17, KJV)
Was this appearance not real?
If the gospels are actual accounts (or telling of accounts), shouldn't they have more weight behind them than something like Pete (as it was not a gospel)?

There is no need to put Peter against the gospels, if one gives the matter sufficient thought and ask the right questions.

You say this here, but you also say "...they misunderstand scripture because they look at passages in isolation, come up with bogus ad hoc explanations and/ or simply don't give the matter enough thought."
Doesn't that seem to be a bit hypocritical you you? I mean, I could say the same thing about you citing your verse, but ignoring the verses showing it may have been physical.
Not that we can expect anyone to legitimately 'jive' biblical contradictions. Just pointing it out for the sake of discussion. And for me, I don't care one way or the other. I was simply looking for others POVs.

Thanks for answering the questions - apologies for missing your response initially!

[TRANSPONDER]

....three utterly contradictory accounts ...

But no one has been able to show true contradiction in them. It is not a contradiction in the Bible, when it is only in someone’s personal interpretation of the story.

We all know what's going on here. An apparent contradiction can be pointed out. Such as John says that Thomas was absent Sunday night when Jesus showed up, while Luke says the 'eleven' (minus Judas of course) were there. Now what you call a 'true' contradiction is that they actually do reveal that one account can't be true. But we all know what's going on.

On the 'resurrection' thread (where you may continue this line of discussion if you wish) an apparent contradiction - did the women see Jesus or not? - was explained ingeniously by the women splitting up and the other one not.

So what it comes down to is (a) can the apparent contradiction be explained or not?
(b) if not, can it be denied using 'there is probably some explanation', or something of the kind? Denial of what is pretty damn' obvious unreliability in the Bible can allow the believer to claim that nothing wrong in the Bible has been proven.

The believer is at liberty to deny any real or true contradiction, any mistake, error or untruth. It comes down, in the end, to the reader and whether they have an open mind or one already decided.

[TRANSPONDER]

Please show exactly where these have been addressed as I must have missed them

HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1063452#p1063452

...and here
viewtopic.php?p=1063455#p1063455

You will have to do much better arguments than just easy 'you have it all wrong' dismissal. You just make your case, yourself and your religion, look bad when you try to pull such crummy evasions.

However this isn't the first time that I have seen an argument that Jesus' body didn't rise (only his spirit did) but nevertheless the body vanished as otherwise the Bible would be contradicted. The only answer that works is that 'the disciples took it'.

[JehovahsWitness]

You say "...they misunderstand scripture because they look at passages in isolation, come up with bogus ad hoc explanations and/ or simply don't give the matter enough thought."

Doesn't that seem to be a bit hypocritical you you?

No it does not.

I mean, I could say the same thing about you citing your verse, but ignoring the verses showing it may have been physical.

Not citing a verse(s) does not mean "ignoring" it. Nobody has asked me for an explanation of the verses you mentioned.



JW