Why was Jesus unrecognised?

[marco]

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?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

I know the disputes about Cleopas and Clopas. I see that some would want the other guy to be Luke, as that would give a nice touch to the tale.

An event of universe-shattering importance occurs. Some unnamed person is strolling away from Jerusalem with somebody called Cleopas. Is this how the world receives verification of a resurrection?

Supposedly one of the ways. 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? (Edit: The argument that those who saw the risen Christ would necessarily rise to great prominence seems rather questionable if there were a hundred-odd folk who did so; Luke enumerates 120 early believers in Acts 1:15, of whom we read scarcely twenty names and remember perhaps nine or ten.)

If we are going to enter the territory of "if", then perhaps we should start with the idea that it was not the dead Jesus who walked to Emmaus, but somebody else. Why is it preferable to accept a risen corpse rather than another person?

I suppose some would argue that if two people who knew Jesus recognized him as such, they might have been in a better position to make that determination than folk who don't know Jesus, don't know the guy on the road, don't know the two companions and don't know anything about the event beyond the bare bones heard and related by Luke.

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Could a supposedly omnipotent entity (or part of one, or whatever) be limited by any prohibition?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

If they recognized Jesus right away, Luke would not have had the opportunity to put in all that prophesy stuff.

I think an assessment of literary creativity is in order. Perhaps the name Cleopas, like the name Theophilus, conveys its own general meaning. But one should raise an eyebrow at the event being recounted without specific names being given, since these people, who spoke to the risen Christ, would, ipso fact, rise to huge importance by their testimony. That Christ seems playful after his traumatic re-emergence from death is maybe more miraculous than odd.

It may have been the entire tale was based on a vague rumour, and elaborated; or made up from start to finish; or if we are to give it credit, then perhaps some background plot involved a man similar in appearance to the dead Christ and wine and wishing contributed to Christ's later recognition.

As I have argued at length in another Topic, Luke intentionally changes Matthew’s story extensively because Matthew presents significant problems for Luke’s Gentile audience. Matthew has the disciples leave Jerusalem and go to Galilee to see Jesus along with the other disciples. Luke has disciples leaving Jerusalem but Jesus turns them around back to Jerusalem to tell the Apostles, who are then told by Jesus to stay in Jerusalem. The Galilee vs. Jerusalem issue is a long story that I will not (ahem) resurrect here. But it is a very significant factor in the Luke vs. Matthew affair.

No rumor need be postulated. Just another example of Luke turning Matthew around, in this case supplanting Matthew’s rather skeletal story about going to Galilee with a much more fleshed out one about staying in Jerusalem.

About the name, Cleophas is a Greek name contracted from Cleopater, meaning ‘renowned father’. The fact that it is Greek and not Aramaic or even Hebrew points to it being not an actual name of any disciple but one supplied by Luke. While what ‘renowned father’ may or may not have meant to Luke is unclear, elaborate stories have been created about it.

[1213]

Oh, indeed it would…
Perhaps if we had some DNA from the risen Jesus we might find abnormalities in it. ...

I don’t think that would be any meaningful difference. Meaningful difference would be that people become righteous. I don’t think finding Jesus DNA would do that.

[JehovahsWitness]

Given the above, Jesus as a "materialized" spirit was not obliged to appear in a body that was the exact replica of the one he died in.

It seems to have been sufficiently similar as to have carried the wounds he received.

QUESTION Did Jesus post resurrection body carry the wounds inflicted on it during his execution ?

Jesus famous invitation to Thomas to examine his bodily wounds during one of his post resurrection appearances leads many to jump to the conclusion all of his appearances were in a body that carried the wounds inflicted during his execution, but is this a reasonable conclusion?

First and foremost, Jesus body would have been extremely mutilated by the time he died to say the least. Even before his public trial Jesus had been slapped and punched in the face so no doubt he was bruised. Then as we know, Jesus had been subjected to a Roman scourging, a process that involved being lashed with leather straps with pieces of bone attached to them. As the straps hit the body the sharp fragments would hook into the flesh, tearing it away with each stroke. This type of torture would cut through to the bone leaving the victims body an open, quivering wound. Scourgings have been known to take out a man's eye, his knock out his teeth... some would die under the onslaught from shock or bloodloss. How likely is it that Jesus post resurrection appeared in such a horrific condition ?

More than this Jesus had a "crown" made of thorns thrust on his head (It is thought the crown was made from the plant that came to be called Paliurus spina-christi, but we cannot know this for sure). In any case, this would have left cuts on his skull and forehead. As everyone knows, he was eventually be attached to his execution stake with nails (probably through the ankles and wrists) sturdy enough to keep attach a man's body attached to a stake.



He was also stabbed in the chest.

In 1968, in an excavated tomb located just NE of Jerusalem, the remains were found of a Jew who was executed in the first century by being attached to a torture stake. As shown by subsequent studies, an iron nail 11.5 cm (4.5 in.) long was still piercing the right heel bone. This nail may be similar to the nails employed by the Roman soldiers to impale Jesus Christ.

Source : https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003174#h=3

NOTE Theories abound as to what the fjnal cause of death, died from a ruptured heart, bloodloss, suffocated caused because exhaustion meant he no longer had the strength to push himself up by his legs so he could breath...or he if he simply went into circulatory shock.... the bottom line is the body would have been in a most horrific condition by the time he died.

Now try to imagine a normal reaction seeing a man with the above injuries; granted Jewish dress at the time covered most of the body but its hard to imagine that those parts which where exposed would not be shockingly cut and bruised, or that anyone but a blind man wouldnt immediately see the man had flesh hanging off the exposed parts of his body, face and arms*

...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. Even if his body only had the wounds on his hands and side, Cleopas and his companions sat down to eat with Jesus, who took the bread and broke it as part of a traditional hosting custom. It's unlikely they never once glanced at his hands* during this gesture, yet it was the gesture itself not the holes in "the strangers hands" that triggered their memory.

* It was also customary to have the FEET of guests washed as they entered the home, if Jesus' body on this occasion bore the same wounds he drew to the Apostles attention surely it would have been noticed at this moment.

Even in the Galilean appearance the narrative has the APOSTLES, not daring to ask who the stranger on the beach was, convinced it was Jesus, but glaring in its absence is the statement that they knew it was him because he bore the same wounds he had shown to them some days earlier...



* Not to mention if (as some contest) he had a human body with blood and a beating heart which would result in him being covered in blood!

CONCLUSION There is absolutely no mention or indication Jesus body carried wounds except for on the two initial encounters with The Twelve and even then it is unlikely that he appeared as shockingly mutilated as he would have in reality been at his death. The narrative of his other appearances indicate he was not carrying any noticeable wounds at all.

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

[Overcomer]

Jehovah's Witness wrote:

Jesus appeared to them in a physical body but he was no longer human. Having died as a man he was raised as a spirit.

That isn't true. He was not a mere spirit. If he had been, he wouldn't have told Thomas to touch him and he wouldn't have been able to eat fish on the shore with the disciples. He was raised with a glorified body, meaning that he was raised with a body that will never age, get sick or die. That's what 1 Corinthians 15 is all about. It's the same kind of body his followers will have when raised from the dead to walk this earth when Jesus establishes his millennial reign.

What's interesting to me about the episode on the road to Emmaus is this:

Cleopas and his friend thought Jesus was dead, that everything he promised would never come to fruition. They had no "heart" sight of him, something that goes hand-in-hand with one's physical sight of him. Only after Christ had revealed what the Old Testament Scriptures said about him, did they finally get it. Heart sight led to physical sight. As they say, seeing isn't necessarily believing, but believing is seeing.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by Overcomer]

Are you suggesting that materialized angels/spirits ( spirits/angels that "took on" human bodies so that humans can see them) could not eat or be touched ?

[Zzyzx]

.

Are you suggesting that materialized angels/spirits ( spirits/angels that "took on" human bodies so that humans can see them) could not eat or be touched?

Has it been established with verifiable evidence that 'materialized angels / spirits' are anything more than imaginary?

I doubt that imaginary spirits / angels can eat or be touched (except, perhaps, in one's imagination or fantasy tales).

[bjs]

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?

All four Gospel writers regularly described people who were not named (“a teacher of the law� “the Pharisees� “a sinful woman� “a centurion� “a demon-possessed man�), or mentioned someone’s name only once with no other description (“Malchus� “Judas (not Judas Iscariot)� “Joanna� “Susanna�).

Most likely, if a name is mentioned once without any other explanation it is because that person became well known enough in the church later on that the name would be recognized by the original audience.

c) Why would Christ use rumour and doubt rather than astounding clarity to prove he was risen.

This story doesn’t fit the standard definition of the word “rumor.� Can you explain what you mean?

d) Is there a case for concluding the resurrection tale is fictional?

No, nothing in the story suggests that. Can you explain your reasoning?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by Zzyzx]

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 on the information in the gospels and related writings.


Thank you for your input,


JW