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]

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'.

Christians seem to have a few 'go to's' when things get 'hairy':
Have faith
God works in mysterious ways
You don't understand god (like I do)
That's not what it 'means'/'says'

Some newer ones I've personally encountered:
That's not logical (but a talking bush, that burns and isn't consumed is)
No, god's not all powerful because that wouldn't make sense
You're/they're not real christians

All of which continue to surprise me (though they shouldn't at this point).
A belief can exist independent of facts, logic, data or substance. JW (or anyone else) has the right to believe what they want here as this thread was about belief, not proving.
That said, any belief can be challenged here.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #30]

No it does not.

Of course not. I didn't expect anything less than that response.

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

I said:
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)?

See the there?
That denotes a question.

If this doesn't account for an 'ask', here it is:

I ask you for an explanation of the verses mentioned above and how they directly impact your chosen lifestyle agenda (aka belief it wasn't physical).

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, looking at the OP, it just asks whether one believes in the resurrection or not. But it was always going to expand to the case for whether the resurrection claim can be believed. And that as our Pal JW argues comes down to objections being answerable. My line of course is that denial and dismissal is not a True answer. In fact it is merely assuming reversal of Burden of proof.

I don't mean that the Gospel account is to be rejected unless proven, it is evidence and the burden of proof then falls on the critic. The point is that real and sound reasons to say that the resurrection cannot be true because of arguments x, y and zee, can be and are (in the end) dismissed with denial and appeal to variants on 'there is some explanation' (1) , which is no more than assuming it's true even if it doesn't look it, and I've found that with everything from questioning of Genesis validity to Gospel reliability. The Believer assumes that waving away all problems leaves the Bible (that is to say, Godfaith) the default. But it isn't. Not unless one already has Faith as the default.

(1) out of context, they wrote differently, then, you are interpreting it incorrectly, they wrote from different points of view, weaving together or they were different events, are just some of the examples, once attempts to make the narrative work (e.g 'the women took different routes') have been shown to be inadequate. Or just silence is often the final option.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

The Believer assumes that waving away all problems leaves the Bible (that is to say, Godfaith) the default. But it isn't. Not unless one already has Faith as the default.

That is a good point to make, not only here but in most, if not all, other aspects of the bible. In order to accept most any of it, you have to have faith: faith in god, faith in those that wrote it, faith in those that edited it, faith in those that translated it (if necessary), faith in those that agreed what should and shouldn't go in it. Faith faith faith.
And how does one get that faith?
Accepting 'god'.
Why would one do that?
Well, who wants to spend eternity in hell when you can spend it in heaven?
Duh.
It seems, no matter if one believes in the physical resurrection or not, it, like all things 'bible', comes down to faith.

[JehovahsWitness]

Was this appearance not real?

I believe so, yes.

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)?

I have already answered this question, look back you will see it HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1063455#p1063455

That denotes a question.

Yes I know.... see above.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I ask you for an explanation of the verses mentioned above and how they directly impact your chosen lifestyle agenda (aka belief it wasn't physical).

I take the above to mean: Can you please explain the above scriptures in the light of your belief that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit [question mark --- > [?] ]

IF JESUS WAS RESURRECTED AS A SPIRIT HOW WAS HE ABLE TO SHOW THOMAS THE WOUNDS ON HIS BODY?

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).

Biblically spirits/angels can take on human form. Since after his resurrection Jesus was frequently not recognised by his friends, it seems reasonable to conclude he did not "materialized" (appeared in human form) in exactly the same body he had when he died.

JESUS RESURRECTION

Was Jesus resurrected as a human being?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#p909944

Was Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or physical body?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 16#p753616

If Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, how could he show Thomas the sounds on his body?
viewtopic.php?p=1063505#p1063505

Did Jesus post resurrection body carry the wounds inflicted on it during his execution ?
viewtopic.php?p=967900#p967900

Why did Jesus' disciples not recognise him after his resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 49#p967749

Why could God not simply give Jesus back his old body?
viewtopic.php?p=1035994#p1035994

If Jesus was not raised in the same body, why was the tomb empty?
viewtopic.php?p=1036029#p1036029

Was Mary able to touch the risen Christ?
viewtopic.php?p=908706#p908706

To read more please go to other posts related to...

THE RESURRECTION , JESUS RESURRECTION and ... RESSURECTION CHRONOLOGY

[nobspeople]

I ask you for an explanation of the verses mentioned above and how they directly impact your chosen lifestyle agenda (aka belief it wasn't physical).

I take the above to mean: Can you please explain the above scriptures in the light of your belief that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit [question mark --- > [?] ]

Why do you pick a verse that seems to say it's spiritual while ignoring others that point to it may not have been (without resorting to the 'I take this to mean' smokescreens)?
Otherwise we're left to conclude you picked one that fits with your chosen lifestyle agenda, ignoring the ones that are contradictory.

I have already answered this question, look back you will see it.

Please point to that explanation.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why do you pick a verse that seems to say it's spiritual while ignoring others that point to it may not have been ...?

I have already addressed this question HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1063495#p1063495

[nobspeople]

Why do you pick a verse that seems to say it's spiritual while ignoring others that point to it may not have been ...?

I have already addressed this question HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1063495#p1063495

You're confused

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.
nobspeople wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:17 pm
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.

No where there does it say why you prefer one verse over a contradictory verse.

So we're left to conclude you pick-n-choose.
Which isn't unchristian - take heart in that!
Thanks for your participation

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

The Believer assumes that waving away all problems leaves the Bible (that is to say, Godfaith) the default. But it isn't. Not unless one already has Faith as the default.

That is a good point to make, not only here but in most, if not all, other aspects of the bible. In order to accept most any of it, you have to have faith: faith in god, faith in those that wrote it, faith in those that edited it, faith in those that translated it (if necessary), faith in those that agreed what should and shouldn't go in it. Faith faith faith.
And how does one get that faith?
Accepting 'god'.
Why would one do that?
Well, who wants to spend eternity in hell when you can spend it in heaven?
Duh.
It seems, no matter if one believes in the physical resurrection or not, it, like all things 'bible', comes down to faith.

True. But the fact is that Faith is not incurable. The 'Rachel Slick' apologetic is one of the main reasons why people Lose Faith - they realise that the Bible does not warrant belief. A god of some sort, possibly, but That god - no. The other major deconverter is the problem of evil and despite some tough apologetics (though it usually ends up with variants upon 'God knows best'), some do decide either that Hell cannot be real and opt for UR or give up on Biblegod altogether.,

Despite those who say 'You cannot change peoples' minds' the fact is, that people can change their own minds. Sometimes while they are doing their most furious battles for the Faith.