Shyone Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Bodily Resurrection? The gospels clearly indicate that Jesus was bodily resurrected. The tomb was therefore empty because the body of Jesus was reanimated. In some passages, Jesus walked and talked, and when he was "tested" by Thomas, Jesus reportedly indicated his wounds which further reinforces the idea of physical bodily resurrection. Luke makes no bones about it: Luke 24:39. "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." There are some problems with this idea as presented in the gospel texts however. The first is that Jesus was apparently difficult to recognize. Mary mistook him for a gardener, and even some of the disciples that saw him weren't sure. Matt. 28:17. "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Can you worship someone you doubt? One reason suggested in Mark 16 is that Jesus appeared "in a different form." "12. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country." But if Jesus was bodily resurrected, then the body should not have "changed form." He never changed form when he was alive and in his body, so the idea of bodily resurrection seems to be something other than actual bodily resurrection. Luke suggests that "something" prevented them from recognizing Jesus: Luke 24:16. "but they were kept from recognizing him." In John 21, the disciples at first didn't recognize Jesus, but then they did. For some reason, however, there was a question raised that they never asked: John 21:12. "Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord." Why would they have even wanted to ask if they recognized him? Apologists have varying explanations for this, some of which relate to scripture and some that require omniscience, but in general they suggest that he was simply unexpected and therefore they did not recognize him because it would have been impossible for them to be seeing Jesus. They couldn't believe their eyes. But a difficult to recognize Jesus is not nearly as problematic for believers in bodily resurrection as when he supposedly appeared magically in a room that was closed with locked doors as mentioned in John 20:19. "On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"" This is not bodily resurrection, because this body does not obey physical laws as he did when alive. How would he get his flesh and bones into the room? Luke also credits the bodily resurrected Jesus with the ability to disappear: Luke 24:31. "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight." Of course, an apologist could claim that it was magic. God/Jesus could do anything, walk through walls, glow, or even disappear, but this begs the question about what bodily resurrection means. What happens to the flesh and bones when Jesus is appearing and disappearing? Why didn't Jesus float instead of walk if he was magically endowed? Jesus also appeared to Saul of Tarsus who at least had the integrity to admit that the vision he saw was not one of flesh and bones. It did not, however, stop him from claiming to have seen the resurrected Jesus: "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" It is possible to take the gospels and show the resurrection story to be one of a stolen or missing body, spirit vision appearances, and recollections of the disciples about the life of Jesus. Add to this some passages from the old testament that seem to suggest resurrection, and you have what most likely really happened. With some literary liberties to glue the passages together, the account would be complete. The references to bodily resurrection were added later as interpolations and edits to bolster a religion that would not have stood on the credulous and superstitious testimony of people who had only seen visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads and ghosts. I plan to write such an account, and I will post the results when completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Apologists acknowledge that the bodily resurrection is the anvil upon which xtianity is forged. Without it, there is no salvation, which is why they defend it so vehemently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Bishop Spong wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus that follows somewhat the same line of thought as you do. You might find it useful. But yes, the gospel narratives, once the veil of doctrinal conditioning is torn away, reveals the evidence of a group psychological phenomenon and a gradual elaboration upon the idea of a "spiritual" resurrection of Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bro Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 Bodily Resurrection? There are some problems with this idea as presented in the gospel texts however. The first is that Jesus was apparently difficult to recognize. Mary mistook him for a gardener, and even some of the disciples that saw him weren't sure. Matt. 28:17. "When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted." Can you worship someone you doubt? The some who doubted are the ones that didn't worship, the ones that worshipped didn't doubt. That's how I see it. As to your question, I doubt God's existence, or rather, I have a few unanswered questions, but I still worship. One reason suggested in Mark 16 is that Jesus appeared "in a different form." "12. Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country." But if Jesus was bodily resurrected, then the body should not have "changed form." The belief is that Jesus had a glorified resurrected body, and it wasn't constrained by the limitations a mortal decaying body has. He never changed form when he was alive and in his body, so the idea of bodily resurrection seems to be something other than actual bodily resurrection. Luke suggests that "something" prevented them from recognizing Jesus: Luke 24:16. "but they were kept from recognizing him." In John 21, the disciples at first didn't recognize Jesus, but then they did. For some reason, however, there was a question raised that they never asked: John 21:12. "Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord." Why would they have even wanted to ask if they recognized him? Again, it's the glorified body and what Jesus was able to do with it. Like on the road to Emmaus when 'their eyes were suddenly opened', and they recognised Jesus. In short, as you say, Jesus' 'new body' was sort of magical. He could disguise his appearance, walk through walls, dissapear, appear etc. The power he had to walk on water was now his for keeps so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 22, 2010 Author Share Posted February 22, 2010 Bishop Spong wrote a book about the resurrection of Jesus that follows somewhat the same line of thought as you do. You might find it useful. But yes, the gospel narratives, once the veil of doctrinal conditioning is torn away, reveals the evidence of a group psychological phenomenon and a gradual elaboration upon the idea of a "spiritual" resurrection of Jesus. I probably should read the book, but for now this is an independent exercise. I'm hoping to write a coherent narrative that fits the available information (removing the inconsistencies and rubbish), and when I finish I may get Bishop Spong's book. If several people come to the same conclusion independently - including the details - then it supports the conclusion. Also, with regard to the details, I may miss something, others could possibly miss something, and together we may have an even stronger story. I also have this desire to write something that is readable, sympathetic to the people involved, understandable, and still explanatory in ways that everyone could understand. If I can complete this, I'll write another narrative on the growth of Christianity. Incidentally, I'm writing a story, not simply an analysis. I will document what I can, but it is in essence "historical fiction." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 22, 2010 Author Share Posted February 22, 2010 Again, it's the glorified body and what Jesus was able to do with it. Like on the road to Emmaus when 'their eyes were suddenly opened', and they recognised Jesus. In short, as you say, Jesus' 'new body' was sort of magical. He could disguise his appearance, walk through walls, dissapear, appear etc. The power he had to walk on water was now his for keeps so to speak. It sounds like they want it (and have it) both ways: Bodily resurrection - flesh and bones - but with a magical fantastical twist where his physical body can stop being physical when it wants. But that is not physical resurrection. Zombies can't walk through walls. Also, the "glorified body" thing is strange. Jesus spoke himself (or someone wrote words and put them into his mouth) about flesh and bones. He emphasixed that he was most definitely not a ghost. And yet, this magical stuff is only consistent with a ghost... It sounds like two tales being woven together by people who had two different ideas about resurrection. I'd say the ghostly visions are more likely the basis for the story simply because we still have people that have ghostly visions of Jesus. Susan Atkins did when she entered her cell after conviction (long before her brain tumor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 The Gnostics believed that the resurrection was purely a spiritual thing; they also believed in a lot of other things that went contrary to the mainline church doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The Gnostics believed that the resurrection was purely a spiritual thing; they also believed in a lot of other things that went contrary to the mainline church doctrine. I think it's interesting that the Gnostic church was established already during Paul's time. You would think that if all the evidence was to convincing for everyone that Jesus was a person who was resurrected physically that it would be impossible to start a heretic church who said otherwise. It only shows that it wasn't so clear to the people that Jesus was bodily resurrected. If they could doubt already then... Sometimes we hear the argument that legends take 500 years (or something else stupid) to develop, well then, how could the Gnostic have developed false legends about Jesus within 30-40 years? Apologists' arguments usually go both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ Fuego ♦ Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 "I ain't got no body..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 "I ain't got no body..." "...I'm in an awful way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts