Resurrection: Does Your Minister/Church Preach What You Believe?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
revsdd said:

The passage in John 20 does not say that Thomas ever touched Jesus' wounds. It says that he insisted on touching Jesus' wounds before he believed, but the narrative suggests that although Jesus then invited him to touch the wounds, ultimately seeing Jesus was sufficient for Thomas to believe. Nothing says that Thomas ever touched him. Luke 24:39-40 also records Jesus showing his wounds to the disciples and inviting them to touch him, but doesn't say that they did touch him.

There are actually few specific reference to Jesus actually being touched by any of his disciples after the resurrection.

Matthew 28:9 says that the disciples touched his feet. John 20:17 says that Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to hold onto him, which implies physical contact although it isn't actually stated outright that Mary touched him.

The physicality of the resurrection is stated most plainly in the accounts of Jesus eating with his disciples. Disembodied spirits presumably do not eat.
Click to expand...
Now that is interesting. I find John a bit different with his approach on how he relates to things. He tells us Gods Kingdom is spiritual....is there a sort of dualism between the flesh and the spirit within his teachings? One from above and the other from below? In John too "eat my flesh and drink my blood" are spiritual words and not literal?
 
Waterfall said:
Now that is interesting. I find John a bit different with his approach on how he relates to things. He tells us Gods Kingdom is spiritual....is there a sort of dualism between the flesh and the spirit within his teachings? One from above and the other from below? In John too "eat my flesh and drink my blood" are spiritual words and not literal?
Click to expand...

That's the essence ... GOOGLE "essence" for the integral portion ... a kind of alien understanding?
 
Waterfall said:
Now that is interesting. I find John a bit different with his approach on how he relates to things. He tells us Gods Kingdom is spiritual....is there a sort of dualism between the flesh and the spirit within his teachings? One from above and the other from below? In John too "eat my flesh and drink my blood" are spiritual words and not literal?
Click to expand...

I would say that all of Scripture recognizes the existence of both a physical and a spiritual reality, which to some extent is demonstrated by Jesus (totally divine & totally human.)

The reference to flesh and blood was clearly not literal. Jesus was obviously not encouraging his disciples to cannibalism, although many even here insist on taking an image that they know very well was metaphorical and presenting it literally as a way of mocking the faith. It's clear that Jesus was saying that bread and wine were metaphorically his flesh and blood, because they clearly were not - his flesh and blood were sitting at table with the disciples while they ate. (Unless, of course, you believe in transubstantiation - which I do not, and which is far too big an issue for me to want to get into, especially since I don't think many on WC2 believe in transubstantiation.) In the same way many of the "I am" statements in John are intended to be metaphors. Jesus is clearly not literally a door or a gate or a shepherd or a vine. They are images used to describe him, his mission, his purpose, his nature.

Which does, I agree (given the way "I am ..." is used in John's Gospel) lead to varied interpretations of what is meant by "I am the way, the truth and the life."

The challenge of suggesting that the resurrection is a metaphor is that the resurrection stories are clearly not written as metaphors. The discussion we've had about touching and eating suggest that the authors of the account were not presenting these stories as metaphors but as literal accounts of some type of physical resurrection.
 
revsdd said:
Interesting how we perceive things differently here. I find it more credible that, finally confronted with the appearance of the resurrected Jesus, Thomas would be overwhelmed by the experience to the point of not needing to touch Jesus.
Click to expand...


The difference is interesting. I don't find your take to be implausible. And whether Thomas and the others did or did not touch doesn't really prove the point anyway. That Jesus invited and was willing to be put to such a test is, from where I sit, the deciding factor. Add to that the several instances of him handling and eating food and it is clear that the intent of the Gospels is to communicate the idea that Jesus was not a ghost seen by some and not seen by others.

revsdd said:
No argument there. In my view, it is the most obvious reason for the inclusion of the touching and eating stories. This was a real resurrection and not a metaphor, and it had a physical component to it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
revjohn said:

The difference is interesting. I don't find your take to be implausible. And whether Thomas and the others did or did not touch doesn't really prove the point anyway. That Jesus invited and was willing to be put to such a test is, from where I sit, the deciding factor. Add to that the several instances of him handling and eating food and it is clear that the intent of the Gospels is to communicate the idea that Jesus was not a ghost seen by some and not seen by others.



Agreed.
Click to expand...

Thus metaphysical thoughts can re-arise in another generation ... in theory as suggested by definition of metaphysics? A theory about love and everything intangible? Could this be rendered into nothing but a void to be feared ?

Some would say a holiday in irony ... Sah-Tyre in the eastern pool of Roman control ... expect waves!
 
revjohn said:

What, to me, seems to be of greatest importance (as far as the history of Chrisitanity is concerned) is less whether Jesus was metaphorically or literally raised and more the change that the resurrection catalyzes in the hearts and minds of those who experience it. In a span of weeks men who formally hid from authorities are now standing on the very doorstep of those authorities proclaiming a very unpopular (and then deadly) message.

It matters not whether we believe the resurrection to be spiritual only or bodily only or some blend of the two if that belief does not change who we are at our core.
Click to expand...
Paul seems to be saying it will be a spiritual body here which seems to agree with John:
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 - New International Version

But I personally could agree, that the resurrection catalyzes in the hearts and minds of those who experience it, making it a very real event which you describe by using the heart as a metaphor as one resting place where we hold this information.
 
No-dhow-tin my shiny mind buried deep in books dirtied with word ... some a very uneasy about words ... especially large pools of M! They come bi de thousands ...

May go see The Shape of Water this afternoon before the ripples of the Ontario storm hit ... or maybe the Post!
 
Me, myself and the essence that holds me together while in Passover of overly emotional pools ... the great I 've conscience ... some didn't get nun ... thus the log to carve edicts on ... and they don't do much wrong as they argue about them ... until the atom is raised ...
 
Jae said:
Spirituality at its best, I feel, requires more than one person in the kayak reflecting on God together.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why Jae? Here you say you 'feel' that more than one person needs to be present in order to reflect on god. What does the extra person add? Does what you feel trump what someone else thinks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top