Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?

[Regens Küchl]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

[Tcg]

I have spent most of my life searching the scriptures

I know what you mean. You own so many books that you never know which is where and spend more time searching for, than reading it. Thats unfortunate.
How about always keeping the scriptures at the same special place on your bookboard. Always return them exact there after reading. So you will not have to spend more lost time searching the scriptures.

so I can share it with people. But I don't have to beg people to believe it. That's all I'm saying. You make me out to be a cold uncaring person. I'm just saying Christians don't have to twist arms and beg to convince or drag the unbeliever across the finish line.

You should have told that to the christians in the middle ages. Christians commonly did twist arms, limbs, fingers, tortured to death, crippled and burned alive unbelievers and potential unbelievers.
But the christians did succed to drag most unbelievers across the finish line. Praise and glory!

You put the Word in front of people and it's between them and God if they want to believe it. I don't care which way people go because it's not my job to talk people into it who have the right to make up their own minds.

Thats no way to get anyone across the finish line!
And Jesus never teached this weak approach!
Try harder, man of god!

Matthew 10...

11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.

14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

According to your earlier explanation, this would have been written before the New Covenant and therefore wouldn't apply to Christians today.

ETA: Here's your statement from post #539 which I am referring to -

"I'm just smart enough to know that what is spoken in the gospels was for Israel and not the body of Christ. So I figure it does not apply to Christians if it's not in the epistles."


Tcg

I can't find one in the Epistles.

Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?


Tcg

I do not know why we have so many Christians who believe the entire Bible is written directly to them, the Church of God. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate such thinking, and I would like to add nothing could be further from the truth. It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).

To rightly understand the Word of God, one must understand what part is written to the Church of God and what part is written for the learning of the Church. Every word from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, is written for our learning. However, not all of the words from Genesis 1:1, to Revelation 22:21, are addressed to us. We must learn to distinguish not only the various people, but also the different time periods God has spoken to if we want to understand the written Word of God. The time God spoke to the children of Israel is not the same time period He has spoken to us. The time He spoke to the prophets in the time of the Old Testament is not the same time period He spoke to His Son Jesus Christ in the time of the gospels.

The different time periods in the Bible are called dispensations. The Greek word for “dispensation” is “oikonomia” meaning the act of administering. The word “o’kos” means house, and “nemo” means to dispense, to weigh or deal out, as a steward or housekeeper. Therefore, the word was used to manage or administrate a household. The word is used three times in Luke 16:2-4, where it's translated “stewardship.” In four other places it's translated “dispensation.” I like the word administration because it communicates very well with our current English language.

Administrations must be adapted to the time periods in which they are carried out. The administration with Adam before the fall was different from the one with his immediate family after the fall. The administration with Israel “under the law” was carried out on different principles from the present administration of Grace. This present administration is different from the one that will characterize the return of Christ. The administration of Judgment will be different from the one that will belong to the administration of Glory, when all things shall be gathered together in one under the headship of Christ.

We will never understand the truth of God’s Word if we neglect to rightly divide the subject matter. As far as we are concerned in this Grace administration, what happened to Israel in the Old Testament was written for our learning. If we do not rightly divide to whom it's addressed—the Jew, Gentile, or the Church of God, we will use one truth to contradict another truth, and we will use what is true for one group in contrast to what is also true for another group.

These different administrations are suited to different times because God has spoken everything to its proper time and administration. We will never understand the truth of God’s Word if we read into one administration what God tells us belongs to another administration. If we believe what God said in one administration and carry it into another administration that was on a different principle, we will be taking what is true for one time, and using it to contradict what is also true for another time. When we mix them all together, by jumbling the whole Bible together: Law, Gospel, Grace, Judgment, Glory, Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God, we will be very confused in our understanding of the truth of God’s Word.

What is written directly to the Jews, belongs to and is for the Jews. What is written directly to the Gentiles, belongs to and is for the Gentiles. What is written directly to the Church of God, belongs to and is for the Church of God. What does God mean when He tells us that the visions shown to Isaiah was concerning Judah and Jerusalem? It was not addressed to us or written concerning us, but it was addressed to and concerning Judah and Jerusalem. It would be dishonest for the Church of God to interpret to the Church of God what God said concerns Israel.

The present administration of God is in the time period of the New Testament known as Grace. It deals with the new covenant, and it belongs to the time that is called the administration of the mystery. It's a period in time that was not made known to any one prior to this administration because God kept it a secret since the world began. From this our Grace administration, we learn God’s secret purpose that He had placed in Himself, according to the administration of Grace, which was first revealed to the apostle Paul.

From the eighth chapter of the book of Romans, it's written to those who live in this present Grace administration, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” and “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

From the sixth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, it was written to those who lived under the Law administration, “it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.” However, from the third chapter of the book of Romans, it's written to those who live in this present Grace administration, “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” What was written to those who lived under the Law administration is the complete opposite of what is written to us who live under the Grace administration.

We will always be in darkness and confusion regarding the truth of God’s Word if we do not understand the different administrations in the Bible. All hope for our redemption is in Jesus Christ, who was born into this world, died, and in the resurrection, he became the head of a new creation. The living resurrected Christ Jesus has become the one great subject that occupies the Word of God that the church belongs to. It's this Christ Jesus that is the key to the divine revelation in the Word of God for this our Grace administration. The contents of the New Testament must be understood in reference to Christ Jesus our Lord because the doctrine and nature of God for this our Grace administration are centered in His Christ.

How does this lengthy primer on Dispensationalism address specifically my question which is:

"Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?"


Tcg

God is not religious or so cut and dry where everything must be written in stone. There are many obvious things in this life that carry over from one administration to the next. Like breathing can be done in either. Most of the stuff Jesus said like "I will forgive you if you forgive others" is not Christian, but rather the Jewish doctrine to which Jesus first came to address. It's not his position as the resurrected Christ to function in the way he did when he was with Israel on this Earth. This long winded post was to try to help your readers understand who the resurrected Christ is. Because based on how they write, I don't think they know, but are rather caught up on the teachings of Jesus.

How does this shorter winded post answer my question?


Tcg

[The Nice Centurion]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

No, they don't cry "hoax" at all. Paul, who, if your read his works in the original language, did, indeed, meet the risen Jesus in the flesh tells us that the resurrected body is different from the body prior to death (and I would hope so). It is incorruptible. It will never die again. After resurrection, the soul goes away )it is not needed any longer) and what animates the body is the love of God.

The Jews certainly knew where Jesus was buried. If any sort of hoax was being perpetrated, the Jews would have produced the body and crucified or stoned or otherwise punished the apostles and anyone else behind the hoax.

So if Christ had a glorious new body, how was he able to show St.Thomas his wounds?

So if Christ had a glorios new body, how could anyone recognize him.
According to Tombgirls and Emmausgang they already had hard time to do so without him insisting who he was.

An the new body came without Mutant Power for doing Miracles?

Hey, whatever happened to the old Body?

Dont say the apostles stole that!

[The Nice Centurion]

I found a thread verily resembling mine.
It might be helpful for this debate.
viewtopic.php?t=28866

But the OP doesnt get the importance of witnesses to the actual resurrection. He also plants on top of his rambling a false analogy with a three in a yard.

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

[TRANSPONDER]

I found a thread verily resembling mine.
It might be helpful for this debate.
viewtopic.php?t=28866

But the OP doesnt get the importance of witnesses to the actual resurrection. He also plants on top of his rambling a false analogy with a three in a yard.

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

I think it must. We have been sold the idea that the open and empty tomb means a resurrection must have occurred. I have argued that the more reasonable supposition is that the body was taken away. The fact that nobody actually saw any part of the resurrection happening means the 'Body stolen' theory is the best option.

I know the Believers will protest that "But many witnesses saw the resurrected Christ!" No. There are many conflicting claims that someone saw the resurrected Christ, but these stories are so contradictory that the first choice theory is that they were made up by believers eager to try to substantiate the claim about the empty tomb - which is the last thing any of the gospels really agree on. It doesn't do the Christian case any good that the frequent claim "Paul attests to the disciples seeing the resurrection" fails (as anything to persuade the doubters (1) that the I Cor. list contradicts the gospels.

Like I say, the resurrection - the claim on which Christianity stands or falls - is the 2nd most debunkable, the Nativities being the first. For the record, the Bronze goes to the Sermon on the Mount - also a fave hotseller for Christianity.

(1) a common - indeed one might say inevitable - last shot of the Christian apologists is: "Well, you haven't convinced me. I don't care what you say, my Faith remains strong!" Convincing the stubborn believer was never the point, it was the aim of the believer to persuade the doubter, or at least to make a case for Christianity even if the doubter remained stubborn. It is always the debate and the audience watching (and the popcorn seats and peanut gallery is what matters here, we doubters and believers are merely the stage -performers ) that is the point of these debates.

[Clownboat]

I don't think Christ or I care one way or the other if Skeptics believe.

This is painfully obvious.
Could you imgine making claims about talking animals or living in a fish/whale for days (for a couple examples), yet also carring about what others thought of such beliefs?
You have to not care that you believe in talking animals, Eden, an ark and on and on (children might be an exception).

I see nowhere in Scripture where people are dragged to hell. Catholics teach that.

Unfortunetaly, the Bible is not clear enought to do away with such contradictions. Skeptics note this, but I suggest you take the 'I don't care' position and continue on your merry way.

Salvation is available for those who want it.

How is this salvation obtained?

They don't need to convince anybody.

This doesn't make sense. Surely a person would need to be convinced before they would accept a belief. Why would religions be any different?

I have spent most of my life searching the scriptures so I can share it with people. But I don't have to beg people to believe it. That's all I'm saying. You make me out to be a cold uncaring person. I'm just saying Christians don't have to twist arms and beg to convince or drag the unbeliever across the finish line. You put the Word in front of people and it's between them and God if they want to believe it. I don't care which way people go because it's not my job to talk people into it who have the right to make up their own minds.

Right! Which is why I said:
"This is painfully obvious.
Could you imgine making claims about talking animals or living in a fish/whale for days (for a couple examples), yet also carring about what others thought of such beliefs?
You have to not care that you believe in talking animals, Eden, an ark and on and on (children might be an exception)."

Also, you forgot to mention how salvation is obtained.

Also, also, this is still unanswered: "Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?"

[Peterlag]

I don't think Christ or I care one way or the other if Skeptics believe.

This is painfully obvious.
Could you imgine making claims about talking animals or living in a fish/whale for days (for a couple examples), yet also carring about what others thought of such beliefs?
You have to not care that you believe in talking animals, Eden, an ark and on and on (children might be an exception).

I see nowhere in Scripture where people are dragged to hell. Catholics teach that.

Unfortunetaly, the Bible is not clear enought to do away with such contradictions. Skeptics note this, but I suggest you take the 'I don't care' position and continue on your merry way.

Salvation is available for those who want it.

How is this salvation obtained?

They don't need to convince anybody.

This doesn't make sense. Surely a person would need to be convinced before they would accept a belief. Why would religions be any different?

I have spent most of my life searching the scriptures so I can share it with people. But I don't have to beg people to believe it. That's all I'm saying. You make me out to be a cold uncaring person. I'm just saying Christians don't have to twist arms and beg to convince or drag the unbeliever across the finish line. You put the Word in front of people and it's between them and God if they want to believe it. I don't care which way people go because it's not my job to talk people into it who have the right to make up their own minds.

Right! Which is why I said:
"This is painfully obvious.
Could you imgine making claims about talking animals or living in a fish/whale for days (for a couple examples), yet also carring about what others thought of such beliefs?
You have to not care that you believe in talking animals, Eden, an ark and on and on (children might be an exception)."

Also, you forgot to mention how salvation is obtained.

Also, also, this is still unanswered: "Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?"

Also, also, this is still unanswered: "Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?"

It's not unanswered. I have already said this stuff is not written in stone. There are many things that are the same in either administration like breathing air can be done in either. We must understand these administrations have different time periods in the Bible and each have their own beginning and their own ending—with the exception of the last one.

The first is called the Paradise administration. It was the time of innocence, the time before the fall that ends with Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden of the original paradise.

The second is the Patriarchal administration. It was the time after the fall from the Garden of Eden, but before the Law was given. This second administration ended with the coming of the Law to Moses.

The third is the Legal administration. It's suited only to Israel under the Law, and is sometimes called the Mosaic Law that terminated when Jesus Christ died.

The fourth is the Christ administration that overlapped and functioned within the Law administration. Both the Law and the Christ administration officially ended with the coming of Pentecost.

The fifth started on the day of Pentecost as recorded in the second chapter of the book of Acts. This is the present administration of Grace that is for the Church of God. It's the time period you and I now belong to because it's the Grace administration, without any distinction made between the Jew and the Gentile, which will end with the appearing of Jesus Christ.

The sixth begins with the appearing of Jesus Christ, and the gathering together of the saints. Believe it or not, this administration ends with Satan destroyed, and the great white throne judgment.

The seventh is the Glory or Paradise administration, which will not have an ending.

Administrations must be adapted to the time periods in which they are carried out. The administration with Adam before the fall was different from the one with his immediate family after the fall. The administration with Israel “under the law” was carried out on different principles from the present administration of Grace. This present administration is different from the one that will characterize the return of Christ. The administration of Judgment will be different from the one that will belong to the administration of Glory, when all things shall be gathered together in one under the headship of Christ.

[Tcg]

Also, also, this is still unanswered: "Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?"

It's not unanswered. I have already said this stuff is not written in stone. There are many things that are the same in either administration like breathing air can be done in either. We must understand these administrations have different time periods in the Bible and each have their own beginning and their own ending—with the exception of the last one.

You've not addressed it directly. You stated this:

I'm just smart enough to know that what is spoken in the gospels was for Israel and not the body of Christ. So I figure it does not apply to Christians if it's not in the epistles.

The story you are using to explain your action or lack thereof towards those who reject your message is found in Matthew 10. Matthew is not an epistle so according to your claim above, it does not apply to Christians. Why are you using a passage that you claim doesn't apply to Christians to justify your actions as a Christian?


Tcg

[Clownboat]

Also, also, this is still unanswered: "Then why are you using the Matthew 10 passage to justify your actions towards those who reject your message?"

It's not unanswered. I have already said this stuff is not written in stone. There are many things that are the same in either administration like breathing air can be done in either. We must understand these administrations have different time periods in the Bible and each have their own beginning and their own ending—with the exception of the last one.

You've not addressed it directly. You stated this:

I'm just smart enough to know that what is spoken in the gospels was for Israel and not the body of Christ. So I figure it does not apply to Christians if it's not in the epistles.

The story you are using to explain your action or lack thereof towards those who reject your message is found in Matthew 10. Matthew is not an epistle so according to your claim above, it does not apply to Christians. Why are you using a passage that you claim doesn't apply to Christians to justify your actions as a Christian?


Tcg

I fear we will have a wall of text totally unrelated to the use of Matthew 10 incoming.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So if Christ had a glorios new body, how could anyone recognize him.

According to Tombgirls and Emmausgang they already had hard time to do so without him insisting who he was.

They were kept from recognizing him.

An the new body came without Mutant Power for doing Miracles?

Read the Gospels. Jesus performed miracles post-resurrection.

Hey, whatever happened to the old Body?

Who cares.

Dont say the apostles stole that!

Ok.

[TRANSPONDER]

So if Christ had a glorios new body, how could anyone recognize him.

According to Tombgirls and Emmausgang they already had hard time to do so without him insisting who he was.

They were kept from recognizing him.

An the new body came without Mutant Power for doing Miracles?

Read the Gospels. Jesus performed miracles post-resurrection.

Hey, whatever happened to the old Body?

Who cares.

Dont say the apostles stole that!

Ok.

Excuses, waving a magic wand at need, dismissal. Not your best effort. And you have done some good ones.

But really I had to look up this Matthew 10 thing. Shake the dust of your feet off if they don't receive you? Ok. Nobody asked the doorstoop evangelists to get their feet under the table. I did once and never again. Inviting them in to have a more comfortable discussion Quite apart from dictating what I could or couldn't do in my own house, they seemed to think that inviting them in had signed me up to being converted. and shirty they got when they found out different. From then on they stayed on the doorstep.. Though for some time I seem to have dropped off their calling list...can't think why. But (I didn't follow all the argument...well, Ok..none of it, ) is it related to 1 Peter being always ready to give an answer. Which does require a discussion rather than "Git offn; ma property before I give yer both barrels!"

But it doesn't matter how they play it, stay and argue furiously or stalk off in huffy silence, the Atheist (Bible critical) case remains, and all that matters is the general public being able to hear it. Because, friends and friendesses, if the public get to know what we, the goddless, know, Christianity is finished.