Divine Insight wrote:
shnarkle wrote:You are presenting mutually exclusive opposing views and arguing both positions. You don't even seem to know what you're position is in the first place. Thomas poked his fingers into wounds....it is irrelevant whether he poked fingers into wounds or not. You keep bouncing back and forth from one to the other. I'm having no problems following both of your positions. I can also see that they don't make any sense whatsoever. They're quite simple, and simply incoherent.
I can clear that up for you real quick.
I'm not the one who is confused here.
The story claims that it was important to Thomas to verify that the resurrected Jesus was real and physically existed.
No, the story is presenting one who doesn't believe what he's been told.
The story claims that when Jesus actually met with Thomas he instructed Thomas to poke his fingers into Jesus' physical wounds to remove any doubts.
You are then suggesting that Thomas didn't actually follow though on this. To begin with that's just your claim that isn't part of the story.
I'm not suggesting anything here. I'm pointing to the text itself which states that Thomas answered Jesus' instruction instead of describing what you are suggesting.
And secondly, it wouldn't matter anyway what the character named Thomas actually did.
Then why do you insist that he must have plunged his hand into Jesus' side? You are presenting an argument that is the epitome of Chesterton's skeptic. You claim that it makes no difference whether Thomas plunged his fingers into these wounds, then turn around and insist that he must have done what is irrelevant in the first place. Your arguments collapse in on themselves.
The point is that the authors of the story were clearly concerned with conveying to their readers that Jesus had actually been resurrected physical.
Here's what the text actually states: "ÂThen saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."
Notice that what is imperative is to believe and not remain faithless. Notice also the very next line is Thomas' response.
"28ÂAnd Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
Note that this is Thomas' response. Note also that there is nothing about prodding or poking into wounds; to say he did is pure speculation.
Note that the very next thing Jesus says is what is preferable is to believe without seeing. This is the message, not that Thomas actually poked into wounds.
Believe what? Believe in a risen Christ without ever seeing a risen Christ. This is literally what the message is here.
"29ÂJesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed"
The message here is clear; believe. Within the greater context of Jesus' message, it becomes one of believing in Jesus' message which I have already pointed out. Therefore, the message is essentially no different than Paul's message to walk by faith, not by sight. One see's the risen Christ through faith.
And I've also confirmed this with the fact that these stories proclaim and "empty tomb" and a "missing physical body".
And I've already pointed out that Jesus' message was to deny oneself. Jesus obviously followed his own advice, and the author illustrates this quite well with an empty tomb and no body. Christ doesn't identify with his body, and he calls us to do the same.
See AlsoAmerican RenaissanceIrony in Literature - 99+ Examples, PDF, TipsProject 2025: The Trump presidency wish list, explainedTop 10 Most Ridiculous Things That Happened on Riverdale | Articles on WatchMojo.comshnarkle wrote:You don't count as a reputable theologian
I never claimed that I did. All I said is that no reputable Christian theologian would bother arguing for a non-physical resurrection of Jesus because they would know that to do so would be in extreme conflict with the empty tomb story.
Again, you miss my argument completely. I'm not arguing for a non-physical resurrection. I'm simply pointing out that the text is pointing to something that reaches beyond a mere resurrection of the body. It is right in line with the entire narrative.
shnarkle wrote:
To the contrary, my position is that the Bible does indeed describe a physical body being missing from an actual tomb...
Sorry, but fairy tales or myths don't describe actual bodies or tombs. Make up your mind. Is it a myth, a fairy tale, or what? Pick one, and stick with it. Then when you've decided which you would like to retain you can work on developing an argument.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Fairy tales and myths often do describe things like actual bodies and tombs. Even fairy tales and myths need to make some sort of sense if they are going to present a convincing story line.
You are redefining what a myth or fairy tale is. They are a framework for presenting a message. They do not refer to actual physical objects. That would be a factual report; a history. I'm not suggesting that there is no historical parallel here either. I'm simply pointing out that within the framework of myth, the message is what is of importance, not any historical, or geological, or archeological, or biological references. These can have relevance to help explain, but they are different fields with their own purposes.
And besides, you're the one who needs Jesus to be a myth remember?
No, I don't need Jesus to be a myth. I see myths as having great explanatory power, and these narratives do have great explanatory power within that framework.
shnarkle wrote:
and that the Gospels do indeed describe Jesus physically raising from the dead.
I think you may be imagining things again. There is no description of Jesus raising. The narratives simply present a "risen" Jesus. This is actually something that I've never considered until this moment. This seems to be actually reinforcing what I'm suggesting, i.e. the author isn't presenting an actual raising of Jesus from the dead. This is literally true. You just inadvertently pointed out what's really going on, again.
But they did.
Baseless assertion.
They described an empty tomb...
Yep!
... where Jesus had supposedly risen...
Yep! "risen", not "raising"; "being raised"; "in the process of raising from the dead". None of the narratives present Jesus in the process of raising himself from the dead.
Clearly you are extremely in denial of this because to acknowledge it blows your claims clean out of the water.
None of my claims have been blown out of the water. They're all resting peacefully on the surface of a calm, cool, undisturbed pool of water.
If this is your argument you're not going to fare well in Christian debates.
Now you fancy yourself a prophet as well? Confusion isn't much of a basis for predictability.
Never mind debating with me,..
There is no debate in the first place. You aren't presenting an argument to debate.
no Christian would accept your inconsistent claims either.
Perhaps some might not, it's debatable.
shnarkle wrote:Again, I don't deny the numerous interpretations of scripture; I'll even go along with your fragmented perspectives just for fun, but no reputable theologian holds schizophrenic views of the text.
You are the one who is refusing to accept the empty tomb story.
No, I'm not. Again, for probably the fourth or fifth time; I'm pointing directly to the empty tomb story. No one else in this forum needs me to repost this fact; reread what I've posted.
AND the doubting Thomas story as well. I've confirmed that the Gospels is about a physical risen Christ in TWO ways thus far. You have nothing to show where the Gospels support that the resurrected Jesus was just a figment of people's imagination.
Again, you are arguing with yourself. You're presenting a straw man argument, again. Nowhere have I stated that the resurrected Jesus was a figment of anyone's imagination. I'm not saying that doesn't happen either, but that's not my claim.
shnarkle wrote:The fact that you hold two completely opposing views simultaneously, e.g. "insane fairy tales/literal body and tomb" is precisely why you can't possibly be taken seriously by any reputable theologian.
Insane fairy tales can indeed refer to bodies being raised from tombs. There's no contradiction there. Even insane fairy tales can be evaluated for self-inconsistencies.
In fact, you can actually make up an insane fairy tale that is totally consistent in both what it claims and what is physically possible. That still doesn't make it true.
Yet another argument with yourself.
But you already know which side of that debate I would come down on.
Yep; both and then probably neither, one then the other.
shnarkle wrote:
They would need to reject the empty tomb story which most theologians aren't prepared to toss out.
And I'm not suggesting that they need to toss any of it out. I'm simply presenting a view that provides a different priority. I don't have to deny the physical resurrection. I simply point out that there are themes that transcend mere historical events. I've listed a number of examples from the text to illustrate this.
I see.
Probably not.
So now you're beginning to realize that denying a physical resurrection wasn't such a great idea after all.
I never denied a physical resurrection. I simply pointed to a greater truth within the narrative.
Well, my position is very rock solid.
Your position is more like quicksand, swallowing one rock after another. What you are presenting isn't so much a religion as a philosophy; probably a type of Confucianism
My position is quite simply that the Bible cannot be true as it is written.
So you are either asserting that it cannot be true due to the fact that it is written, or you are claiming that in it's written form, it cannot be true. Or, perhaps you are asserting that it could be true were it written another way? I suspect that you're the only one who cares to understand what you've written.
And your position requires that I'm right.
I think your philosophy is a type of ignore/rant Confucianism. Instead of looking at what I've presented, you ignore it and then just simply rant that my position is in alignment with either one or both of your mutually exclusive positions. So you're arguing with yourself, and then presuming that I agree with one or both of your positions.
Even you recognize the contradictions of a physically resurrected Christ.
I recognized the contradictions inherent within your positions.
This is has been my position for decades. If God and Christ are spiritual beings then why would Christ need to be physically resurrected in a physical human body?
The irony here is that you don't see the reality that the narratives are presenting. Everyone in the upper room is in physical bodies. Mary at the tomb is in a physical body. The church through the ages is in a physical body. Christ himself states that he will send his Spirit to indwell in their physical bodies, and yet you can't see the reality that is being presented in these narratives. A truly risen Christ. Instead of looking at what is plainly presented you can do nothing but obsess compulsively on set design, non existent dialogue, special effects, etc.
Why would he need to then ascend to a spiritual heaven taking his physical body with him?
You'll have to answer that one according to whichever premise you choose to take. Given that you can't make up your mind, there's really no point in bothering to reply.
And why wasn't his physical body healed when he was magically resurrected?
I think these types of questions expose these fairy tales to be just that.
So you're going to go with the fairy tale position? You sure about that one? Sure you don't want to change your mind, again?
Not only are they obviously nothing more than superstitious nonsense, but they weren't even very well thought-out.
Given that you are unable to follow the narrative as either a fairy tale or some historical event, it should come as no surprise that it seems to be nonsense.
A Christ who actually rose as a ghost would have indeed made more sense (I will agree with you on that point). But unfortunately for Christian theists, that's not the Biblical story.
More straw arguments. I never referred to ghosts in any of my posts. Are you ever going to address what I've actually posted in this OP, or are you just going to continue to ignore, and rant on about how what you're talking about is nonsense? You are literally admitting that you've been ranting on about how this is all nonsense for decades.
At first glance, I didn't see much point in this new religion you're presenting, but on further examination, I think there might be something more to this ignore/rant Confucianism. There is something called divine ignorance, and ranting has been known to be an attribute of some mystics. Coupling this with an argument from confusion seems consistent as well. It also seems reasonable to then project this all outward as nonsense(e.g. nonsense in/nonsense out). The component pieces are nothing new, but placing them all together into a cohesive clutter of ignorant confusion does have its own logic.
