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?

[marco]

Heart sight led to physical sight. As they say, seeing isn't necessarily believing, but believing is seeing.

This theory would explain how mothers have been reported as seeing their dead sons, often soldiers who have just died on the battlefield who want to say a final farewell. The heart can perhaps control the eyes - and reason as well. When we abandon reason we allow werewolves in.

[marco]

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

This story doesnt fit the standard definition of the word rumor. Can you explain what you mean?

By "rumour" I mean that instead of there being two named friends of Jesus, we have a somebody. But the event is reason-shattering, a walk along the road with a dead man and "a nameless guy." It sounds like a tale that arose and was embellished. Clarity would mean a verbatim report of who, what and when. That Jesus was unrecognised requres explanation, not just speculation, since his identity is of paramount importance. The tale suggests it wasn't Jesus and confirmation from a nobody is inadequate.


The story, almost jocular, has the feel of a fable. Having Jesus deliver a lecture on Scripture would have impressed the hard-liners who were steeped in past lore, but a talk about how the grave felt would have been more informative.

[JehovahsWitness]

...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.

Exactly! And so we conclude it was NOT Jesus.

Well, I don't know who you are referring to by "we" but I do note you are using the bible to draw a conclusion about the bible.



JW

[Tcg]

Well, I don't know who you are referring to by "we" but I do note you are using the bible to draw a conclusion about the bible.

Of course he is using the Bible to draw a conclusion about the Bible. We wouldn't expect one to use the California state driver's manual to draw conclusions about the Bible. What he is not doing is using the Bible as evidence that the claims the Bible makes are factual. The Bible makes claims and marco is examining one of the claims the Bible makes.


Examining the consistency, or rather, in this case, the inconsistency, of a Biblical claim is not using the Bible as evidence that the Bible is factual.



Tcg

[marco]

Well, I don't know who you are referring to by "we" but I do note you are using the bible to draw a conclusion about the bible.

Just as I would "use" my copy of Hamlet to draw conclusions about Hamlet; I am not however assuming the truth of the Bible to prove the Bible is true, which would be begging the question, as Tcg as just pointed out. If one wants to comment on the Bible, one has to read it. Reading Dostoyevsky would give us some information about Bible ideas too, but I think it's best to use the Bible if we want to find fault with it.


People use Shakespeare's sonnets - meaning they examine them - to draw conclusions about the person being addressed in them.


To recap: people that seemed to know Jesus didn't recognise him. Conclusion
a) Heaven worked a miracle b) It wasn't Jesus


Incidentally Muslims believe that it wasn't Jesus who was crucified. God worked some sort of miracle to make it look so. Miracles come in handy when we bump against something opposed to out beliefs.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, I don't know who you are referring to by "we" but I do note you are using the bible to draw a conclusion about the bible.

Just as I would "use" my copy of Hamlet to draw conclusions about Hamlet ... If one wants to comment on the Bible, one has to read it.

Thank you! Exactly my point.

I am not however assuming the truth of the Bible to prove the Bible is true ...

Neither am I.


Thank you Marcos, perceptive and eloquent as ever. You have presented a most reasonable approach and although we may disagree in conclusions, we follow similar method.


Regards,

JW



RELATED POSTS


Is it acceptable to refer to the bible when offering opinion on the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 971#967971

[marco]

I Do the same. You have presented a most reasonable approach and although we may disagree in conclusions, we follow similar method.

It is nice of you to observe the similarities in our approach to reading and construing. I would say this, however: Marco's conclusion's are Marco's, owing their authenticity to no one else; but your conclusions, perhaps, are often those of others whose authority and learning you may well respect. I point this out simply to indicate a possible reason for our coming to different interpretations. My interpretation is subject to change, if another human opinion offered better than I have found. And that is eminently possible. Best wishes.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 37 by marco]

Are you suggesting you are the only human in the history of mankind that has come to the conclusions you hold? ....

or simply that ...

while others have come to the same conclusions (by following the same or similar method) you have come to yours through independent thought and critical analysis of the available information, taking into account relevant expert and peer reviewed material that you yourself have applied to the information you have gathered during your unique life as an individual?

If so... me too!!!

...but your conclusions, perhaps, are often those of others whose authority and learning you may well respect.

No you are wrong on this. My conclusions are my own in the same way yours are yours IF I properly understood what you meant by "your own" (see above).

My interpretation is subject to change, if another human opinion offered better than I have found. And that is eminently possible.

I feel exactly the same way, Indeed on this we could be twins!


Anyway enough about me, perhaps it's time to return to the OP I don't want to get "zapped" for derailling.

Be Well,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[marco]

Are you suggesting you are the only human in the history of mankind that has come to the conclusions you hold? ....

You have a delightful way of placing me on a par with Napoleon or perhaps Alexander the Great. My wife would dispute this elevation.

I am one of those who have claimed Jesus may not have been God, and may not have risen as the scribes say, and I am also one who has said this and avoided fire and sword thanks to the date and place of my nativity.

I do not understand in what way learned papers can offer light on the question of why Jesus went unrecognised. I do understand that if one first acclaims Jesus, the rest follows. Go well.