VM44 that is one of the instances I was casually referencing in my first comment above. It seems some unique source the author of Luke was using (Matt and Mark do not have this story) contained a strong docetic flavor by having Jesus be a spirit that instantly appears in their midst to inform them of his power over death but the author or possibly early editor of Luke went to pains to editorialize the episode making it explicit that he was not a spirit by having Jesus say he was flesh and bones and eats food. The whole polemical feel of the interuption contributes nothing to the story other than as a refutation of docetism that was popular already by the time the final form of Luke was apparently written.
Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?
by InterestedOne 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Nobleheart
Interesting thread. I was reading at the posts, and something just doesn't click.
Alright so the part about Jesus appearing in a room, crossing walls and stuff, I can believe that. (taking into account all his many miracles). But if Jesus had a body and was able to show his wounds and eat, which type of body did he have? Physical or spiritual?
In Luke 24:39 he says: "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."
So he was made of flesh and bones. Is that a physical or spiritual body?
And another thing. If Christians who receive the resurrection or survive, will have spiritual bodies like that of Jesus' resurrected body, how come the scripture below says that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom' (if Jesus said he was made of flesh and bones after being resurrected)
1 Corinthians 15:50 says "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
It's confusing, but I'd really appreciate any comment from someone.
-
Nobleheart
bump
-
tec
Christ also said that He had not yet returned to his Father. I think from the scriptures its obvious that He did have a flesh and blood body, and His own body, else what happened to his to begin with?
But His Spirit would have inherited the Kingdom. I don't 100% understand that part, but I don't have to fully understand everything. "Now we see in part, then we shall see in full."
Tammy
-
ProdigalSon
Jesus was resurrected with a "Light Body". Just google it.
-
Nobleheart
thank you. I also appreciate we don't have complete understanding, so I can accept that.
-
peacefulpete
The 1 Cor 15 wording has prompted many debates throughout christian history. Paul himself had an evolving theological perspective which at times struck much closer to what would be labled Gnostic by a later orthodoxy. Paul at times preaches that he and other initiates were already transformed into spiritual creature through a spiritual death and resurrection/ rebirth but yet defended the idea of an after life necessitating some form of body for the spirit to dwell in. The standard interpretation by Paul's biggest fans was that the 'resurrection' wasn't a single event but one that occurred on an individual level when the christian reached a mature level of understanding of the mystery and usually a subsequent rebirthing at death. There also some future eschatological elements wherein the world was transformed through this knowledge. The authors naturally offered different terminology and phrasing but this is the general idea. The main key is the distain for this phsysical world and the flesh that they inhabited, perceiving these as the obstacal to be fought and overcome. The phrase "flesh and blood cannot inherit the ingdom" therefore was understood as meaning that those who saw only the corporeal aspects of life, and even of Jesus, were not initiated into the mystery and not sons of the Kingdom. IOW this passage had reference to the death into christ and rebirth that was understood as occurring at the present with implications for the future. Ultimately whether these Paulinists had correctly interpreted his thoughts (at that moment) or not it illustrates the complexity of the issues and debates of the day.
-
Nobleheart
interesting perspective about those seeing the corporeal aspects of life as not being sons of the Kingdom, brings to mind Romans 8:6
"For the minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life and peace."
It is a complex issue, and definitely open to interpretation. Thanks for your feedback.
-
Band on the Run
I've longed believed that the writers of the NT were unclear about many things in their own minds. Yet they had great reasoning skills. I'm all right with general trends rather than the Witnesses thousands of details (almost none of which are in the Bible). Did Russell teach this? Russell could not have pulled his ideas from the stratosphere. There had to be a body of knowledge(used loosely) from which he took his ideas. I am curious as to what factors cause someone to read actual body and others spirit when the scriptures are confusing.
The Witnesses never acknowledge confusion. I did a lot of research on the historical Jesus, separate from Christology which spooked me at the time. My belief is that Jesus was not clear as to his identity. I should say Jesus in the synoptics.
I'm assuming that a spirit resurrection is consistent with a gnostic view of creation as an atrocity. The Witnesses confused me, though, with paradise on earth for resurrected faithful ones who pass a 679 point test.
-
InterestedOne
Here are some excerpts from Russell from a quick google search showing that he taught a non-physical resurrection of Jesus.
1 " ... Our Lord was put to death in flesh, but was made alive in spirit; he was put to death a man, but was raised from the dead a spirit being of the highest order of the divine nature." Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. V. page 453.
2 ". . . It could not be that the man Jesus is the second Adam, the new father of the race instead of Adam; for the Man Jesus is dead, forever dead." Ibid. Vol. V, page 454.
3 " ... He [Christ] instantly created and assumed such a body of flesh and such clothing as he saw fit for the purpose intended." Ibid. Vol. II, page 127.
4 "Our Lord’s human body … did not decay or corrupt . . . whether it was dissolved into gases or whether it is still preserved somewhere ... no one knows." Ibid. Vol. II, page 129.