[font=Verdana]-
There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Jesus Christ's resurrection.
Some believe that his crucified body was restored to its former life.
Others believe that his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body.
Still others believe that Christ's crucified body is still dead, and its remains squirreled away somewhere on earth in a condition and a location known only to God.
It's also believed by some that Christ didn't come back as a human being; rather, as a spirit being disguised in a fully functioning human avatar; scars and all.
This is an issue well worth taking the time and effort to resolve on a world-wide forum because according to Rom 4:25, it's by means of Christ's resurrection that God is at liberty to grant guilty people a full and complete acquittal; i.e. exoneration; which is far and away superior to a pardon. For example:
Former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard Nixon back in 1974 relative to the Watergate scandal. Ford's pardon in no way exonerated Nixon, it only let him off the hook. Though the pardon protected Nixon from prosecution; his crimes didn't go away. In other words: Mr. Nixon will always and forever be on the books of world history as a crook.
Exoneration-- defined as an adjudication of innocence, which is normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to convict --is much to be preferred over a pardon because exoneration leaves nothing on the books; it wipes people's records so clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to prove they've ever been anything less than 100% innocent. As a result, there will be nothing on the books down at the end with which to justify condemning them to the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:10-15.
/[/font]
The Nature of Christ's Resurrection
Moderator: Moderators
-
WebersHome
- Guru
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:10 am
- Location: Oregon
- Been thanked: 24 times
-
Overcomer
- Guru
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
- Location: Canada
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Mary's tears
Post #11Like you, WebersHome, I'm not surprised that Mary Magdalene didn't recognize Jesus. She had seen him crucified and she knew he was dead. She and Christ's other followers never understood what Jesus meant when he told them about the temple of his body being raised. She was sure that somebody had taken his body. She didn't expect to ever see him again.
Secondly, the woman had been crying. It's hard to see through a veil of tears. And I expect that, in that society, a woman probably didn't make eye contact with a man she didn't know. Her head may have been bowed and her eyes averted.
These things, coupled with the total unexpectedness of seeing Jesus standing before her, gives me an understanding of her failure to recognize him at first glance.
I can only imagine her joy when she realized it was really the Lord.
Secondly, the woman had been crying. It's hard to see through a veil of tears. And I expect that, in that society, a woman probably didn't make eye contact with a man she didn't know. Her head may have been bowed and her eyes averted.
These things, coupled with the total unexpectedness of seeing Jesus standing before her, gives me an understanding of her failure to recognize him at first glance.
I can only imagine her joy when she realized it was really the Lord.
Re: The Nature of Christ's Resurrection
Post #12[Replying to post 1 by WebersHome]
"There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Jesus Christ's resurrection."
That's because the Gospel resurrection narratives are themselves ambiguous, and expressed in several layers of meaning and complexity.
One tradition - the earliest, found in Paul and the other Epistle writers - is that the risen Jesus is a vivifying spirit, not a resuscitated corpse imbued with magical powers. This non-material Christ appeared or manifested from heaven in the hearts and the spiritual perceptions of some of his followers. Paul and the Epistle authors experienced the risen Christ as a light (photism), as a voice (audition), and as an inner manifestation of a spiritual "Presence" (Paul thanks God for having "manifested Christ 'in' me").
There was as yet no empty tomb/rolled away stone narrative, because none was required, Jesus's spirit having been exalted to heaven, which did not depend on a corpse vacating a tomb.
A later tradition - probably invented to combat proto-Docetism (the claim that Jesus had never "come in the flesh" - which in John's Epistles is the claim that "Antichrists" make) - "solidified" the originally spiritual resurrection-interpretation into a series of tales about a resuscitated corpse, still bearing its wounds of execution, walking and talking with disciples (the road to Emmaus story), preparing a picnic on Galilee's shores (inviting disciples to touch the wounds and feel the body to "see that I am not a ghost").
Another tradition - combined the pure spirit tradition with the resuscitated corpse narratives, so that the risen Christ was described as both a victorious, heavenly spirit, and as having (perhaps) a similar kind of "body" referred to by Paul as the Spiritual ("Resurrection") Body. This tradition permits its promoters to depict Jesus as making "appearances" not simply as mystical experiences, but also to manifest physically as a solid ("probe my wounds") body... and then again also to sometimes function as a revelatory spirit whose "body" defies material law (passing through solid obstacles, appearing and vanishing at will, ascending to heaven on a cloud).
Thus, the Gospel resurrection narratives, taken as a whole, represent a dynamic, even versatile, risen Christ - adept and at home in heaven seated at the Father's side, and equally adept and at home manifesting semi-materially on earth (at least for the traditional 40 days between that fateful Passover and the following day of elevation to heaven).
"There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Jesus Christ's resurrection."
That's because the Gospel resurrection narratives are themselves ambiguous, and expressed in several layers of meaning and complexity.
One tradition - the earliest, found in Paul and the other Epistle writers - is that the risen Jesus is a vivifying spirit, not a resuscitated corpse imbued with magical powers. This non-material Christ appeared or manifested from heaven in the hearts and the spiritual perceptions of some of his followers. Paul and the Epistle authors experienced the risen Christ as a light (photism), as a voice (audition), and as an inner manifestation of a spiritual "Presence" (Paul thanks God for having "manifested Christ 'in' me").
There was as yet no empty tomb/rolled away stone narrative, because none was required, Jesus's spirit having been exalted to heaven, which did not depend on a corpse vacating a tomb.
A later tradition - probably invented to combat proto-Docetism (the claim that Jesus had never "come in the flesh" - which in John's Epistles is the claim that "Antichrists" make) - "solidified" the originally spiritual resurrection-interpretation into a series of tales about a resuscitated corpse, still bearing its wounds of execution, walking and talking with disciples (the road to Emmaus story), preparing a picnic on Galilee's shores (inviting disciples to touch the wounds and feel the body to "see that I am not a ghost").
Another tradition - combined the pure spirit tradition with the resuscitated corpse narratives, so that the risen Christ was described as both a victorious, heavenly spirit, and as having (perhaps) a similar kind of "body" referred to by Paul as the Spiritual ("Resurrection") Body. This tradition permits its promoters to depict Jesus as making "appearances" not simply as mystical experiences, but also to manifest physically as a solid ("probe my wounds") body... and then again also to sometimes function as a revelatory spirit whose "body" defies material law (passing through solid obstacles, appearing and vanishing at will, ascending to heaven on a cloud).
Thus, the Gospel resurrection narratives, taken as a whole, represent a dynamic, even versatile, risen Christ - adept and at home in heaven seated at the Father's side, and equally adept and at home manifesting semi-materially on earth (at least for the traditional 40 days between that fateful Passover and the following day of elevation to heaven).
Re: The Nature of Christ's Resurrection
Post #13I think Christ's resurrection is in line with his teachings. He taught that where two or three are gathered in his name, there he is in their midst. When he appears seemingly out of nowhere, they recognize him in their presence and this seems to be the reason for his disappearance as well. Some stranger expounds upon the biblical texts and the disciples know in their burning hearts that something is going on, and then when the stranger breaks bread with them, they suddenly recognize Christ in their midst...and poof he's gone.WebersHome wrote: [font=Verdana]-
There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Jesus Christ's resurrection.
Some believe that his crucified body was restored to its former life.
Others believe that his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body.
Still others believe that Christ's crucified body is still dead, and its remains squirreled away somewhere on earth in a condition and a location known only to God.
It's also believed by some that Christ didn't come back as a human being; rather, as a spirit being disguised in a fully functioning human avatar; scars and all.
This is an issue well worth taking the time and effort to resolve on a world-wide forum because according to Rom 4:25, it's by means of Christ's resurrection that God is at liberty to grant guilty people a full and complete acquittal; i.e. exoneration; which is far and away superior to a pardon. For example:
Former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard Nixon back in 1974 relative to the Watergate scandal. Ford's pardon in no way exonerated Nixon, it only let him off the hook. Though the pardon protected Nixon from prosecution; his crimes didn't go away. In other words: Mr. Nixon will always and forever be on the books of world history as a crook.
Exoneration-- defined as an adjudication of innocence, which is normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to convict --is much to be preferred over a pardon because exoneration leaves nothing on the books; it wipes people's records so clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to prove they've ever been anything less than 100% innocent. As a result, there will be nothing on the books down at the end with which to justify condemning them to the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:10-15.
/[/font]
He tells Mary she can't touch him. He invites Thomas to probe his wounds, but Thomas doesn't actuallydo that. Instead he recognizes Christ in their presence as well.
Re: The Nature of Christ's Resurrection
Post #14I think Christ's resurrection is in line with his teachings. He taught that where two or three are gathered in his name, there he is in their midst. When he appears seemingly out of nowhere, they recognize him in their presence and this seems to be the reason for his disappearance as well. Some stranger expounds upon the biblical texts and the disciples know in their burning hearts that something is going on, and then when the stranger breaks bread with them, they suddenly recognize Christ in their midst...and poof he's gone.WebersHome wrote: [font=Verdana]-
There lacks a universal consensus regarding the nature of Jesus Christ's resurrection.
Some believe that his crucified body was restored to its former life.
Others believe that his crucified body was exchanged for a glorified body.
Still others believe that Christ's crucified body is still dead, and its remains squirreled away somewhere on earth in a condition and a location known only to God.
It's also believed by some that Christ didn't come back as a human being; rather, as a spirit being disguised in a fully functioning human avatar; scars and all.
This is an issue well worth taking the time and effort to resolve on a world-wide forum because according to Rom 4:25, it's by means of Christ's resurrection that God is at liberty to grant guilty people a full and complete acquittal; i.e. exoneration; which is far and away superior to a pardon. For example:
Former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard Nixon back in 1974 relative to the Watergate scandal. Ford's pardon in no way exonerated Nixon, it only let him off the hook. Though the pardon protected Nixon from prosecution; his crimes didn't go away. In other words: Mr. Nixon will always and forever be on the books of world history as a crook.
Exoneration-- defined as an adjudication of innocence, which is normally granted when there is insufficient evidence to convict --is much to be preferred over a pardon because exoneration leaves nothing on the books; it wipes people's records so clean and efficiently that there is nothing left that can in any way be used to prove they've ever been anything less than 100% innocent. As a result, there will be nothing on the books down at the end with which to justify condemning them to the lake of brimstone depicted at Rev 20:10-15.
/[/font]
He tells Mary she can't touch him. He invites Thomas to probe his wounds, but Thomas doesn't actuallydo that. Instead he recognizes Christ in their presence as well.
