What is unbelievable about the Bible
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wrangler said: I asked the question and this was not the question.
Amadeus says: No it was my question.
I’m not making an argument. That is your basic problem in reading what I wrote.
It’s about believability of the record of his 40-days post resurrection. All this nonsense of ‘sufficient’ and we have what we ‘need’ is just a theological distraction.
I’m not asking should we believe what is written. I’m asking if it is believable - to you - that so little was written about the 40 resurrection days. Only introduction and conclusion remarks! Really? That’s believable to you?
We have far more detailed accounts involving far more trivial human experiences. Does that make sense to you?
Someone opined that God wanted so little recorded of these 40-days. Huh?
Right, aka a distraction. I’m not going to play your games. If you don’t want to a see my question, feel free to post elsewhere.
I do not play games on this forum. You apparently did not like my response to your OP. That's up to you.
After his resurrection, Jesus was not in a visible body most of the time. He would appear at times and then disappear from their sight. His existence was no longer of flesh but of invisible spirit.
Acts 10:40 God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses appointed beforehand by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after his rising from the dead.
In view of that, the few mentions of the resurrected Jesus that the Bible gives us are enough to understand the real value of the event itself, since his fundamental teachings had already been planted before his death.
Acts 10:42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Matt. 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.
Luke 24:25 So he said to them: “O senseless ones and slow of heart to believe all the things the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?” 27 And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.
Acts 1:7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. 8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.”
Acts 10:40 God raised this one up on the third day and allowed him to become manifest, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses appointed beforehand by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after his rising from the dead.
In view of that, the few mentions of the resurrected Jesus that the Bible gives us are enough to understand the real value of the event itself, since his fundamental teachings had already been planted before his death.
Acts 10:42 Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness that this is the one decreed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone putting faith in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
Matt. 28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.
Luke 24:25 So he said to them: “O senseless ones and slow of heart to believe all the things the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?” 27 And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.
Acts 1:7 He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. 8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.”
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Jesus was the first to die and to be resurrected in a glorified spirit body. (1 Pet 3:18) He was not raised in a body of flesh. He sacrificed that body so why would he take it back?
All other resurrections up until that time were a return to life in the flesh…..which is what a resurrection originally meant to the Jews. Jesus raising of Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter and the widow’s son were a demonstration of the resurrections he would perform in the future, when his kingdom rules this earth. (John 5:28-29)
Jesus was raised in a body that was going to heaven…a spirit realm inhabited by spirit beings….John tells us that ”God is a spirit” (John 4:24) and the scriptures tell us that angels are also “spirits”…invisible creatures who can take on human form as we see in Gabriel’s appearance to Daniel, and 500 years later to Mary. They did not appear with wings, but just as ordinary men. The three angels who came to Abraham to inform him of the son Sarah would bear to him in their old age, were also in human form.
If spirit beings can materialize human bodies, then why couldn’t Jesus after his resurrection?
Why did they not always recognize him?
Oh dear…do you actually believe that Easter is a Christian celebration of Christ’s resurrection?
Can you find me the word “Easter” in the Bible? Can you find the place of rabbits, chickens and eggs as symbols of our Lord’s sacrifice? What about the hot cross buns?
You disappoint me Wrangler…I thought you were a student of God’s word….but it seems that Christendoms traditions are more palatable to you….though they are as pagan as all get out. (2 Cor 6:14-18) We are told not to ”touch” what is spiritually “unclean” from God’s standpoint, not man’s.
Christmas is also a very pagan adoption.…but do you excuse that too….?
Please provide scriptural evidence that Christ’s resurrection was to be celebrated among Christians as “more important” than the memorial of “his death”, which WAS commanded…it was in fact the ONLY command that Christians had to follow. What was added later were the traditions of men…something Jesus said invalided the worship of God. (Matt 15:7-9)
Jesus went to heaven as a spirit and this is confirmed by the fact that he did not stay (lodge, eat, sleep and preach) with his apostles during the 40 days he lingered before returning to his Father…..he “appeared” to them on many occasions but sometime in a body they did not recognize. For the doubting Thomas, Christ presented the nail marks in his hands and feet to convince him, but we know that Christ would never have been resurrected in the sad and sorry physical state that the Jews inflicted on him before his execution.
His glorious body would have been perfect and free from any of the wounds inflicted by his enemies.
Think it through and allow the Bible to tell you what really happened…..without Christendom’s adoptions muddying the waters….
Bob Estey
Well-Known Member
God is wiser than we are, and I suspect the Bible contains exactly what he wants it to contain.
3 Resurrections
Active Member
I'll offer a suggestion. Jesus during those 40 days was acting like a parent does when they are preparing their young adult children to launch from the home. They back off a bit and delegate more to them, to teach them responsibility so that they can succeed as mature adults.
Jesus had already told the disciples that in the regeneration (His resurrection) when He sat on the throne of His glory, that they also would be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). In the days of the early church, the 12 disciples did just that in establishing Christ's doctrine, and setting up church practices such as choosing deacons to serve the widows of the church, deciding on the question of circumcision, laying hands on those being sent out to evangelize, judging cases such as Ananias and Sapphira, verifying the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles, etc..
For the 12 disciples to be able to function maturely in these roles God had designed for them, the risen Christ took the emphasis off of Himself during those 40 days and put it on the 12 He had chosen to lead His church after His final ascension to the Father.
It was just as Christ had told them in John 14:12. "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father." Christ knew that once He had finally ascended after the 40 days, the responsibility that He had delegated to the 12 disciples would serve as the validation of the New Covenant He had made.
No. For Christ also suffered for sins once—the Righteous One on behalf of unrighteous people—in order to bring us to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive by the spirit 1 Peter 3:18
By the Spirit he was made alive NOT made alive "in" a Spirit body. It's actually a contradiction to use a term "spirit body" just as "round squares" are inherently contradictory.
Obviously, all this is besides the point.
More besides the point "questions." It is not merely a Christian celebration but THE biggest event in the Christian religion, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (And I am well aware of Ishtar's pre-Christian origins. Again, besides the point).
You are so backwards, that you actually think his death was bigger than his resurrection. HINT: His death was not a miracle as all men die. His resurrection was miraculous. A song says it was the greatest miracle of all time. You are actually comparing a non-miracle as superior to a miracle.
And that brings us full circle. I'm not going to write home about 40 days that don't involve any miracles but I will write about the days that involved miracles. See what I'm talking about?
The simple fact that Jesus was invisible most of the time after being resurrected shows that his new body was spirit, not flesh.
1 Tim. 3:16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’
Heb. 9:14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we may render sacred service to the living God?
1 Cor. 15:44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.
Look at the original phrasing in Greek:
1 Pet. 3:18 (...)
θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ __ On the one hand he was put to death in the flesh
ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι __ on the other hand he was made alive in spirit
... the last two expressions: "in flesh" and "in spirit" are opposite to each other. It can't say "by the spirit" because that doesn't make any sense at all inside the context. Actually, there is not any by in the original text.
1 Tim. 3:16 Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory.’
Heb. 9:14 how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works so that we may render sacred service to the living God?
1 Cor. 15:44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust; and like the heavenly one, so too are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we will bear also the image of the heavenly one.
Look at the original phrasing in Greek:
1 Pet. 3:18 (...)
θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ __ On the one hand he was put to death in the flesh
ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι __ on the other hand he was made alive in spirit
... the last two expressions: "in flesh" and "in spirit" are opposite to each other. It can't say "
Papa Smurf
Active Member
Hello Wrangler, I admit that I would like to know more about this time as well, but I trust that the Lord (who loves us and always wants the very best for us) has given us ~exactly~ what we need to know from this time in history, no more, no less, just like He always does, yes .. e.g. Deuteronomy 29:29 cf Romans 8:32.
We know that the Lord completed the work that His Father gave Him to do here because He told us that He did, both before the Cross (as part of His high-priestly prayer .. John 17:4), and while He was on it, of course .. John 19:30 (and I trust that He knew what He was talking about in both instances
).There are SO many important things to glean and understand from the things that He did tell us during that time, as well as all of the many things that we know that He did during that time (eating and drinking in His glorified, spiritual body is certainly one among many of them, as are His final words to us prior to His Ascension, of course .. Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 16:15, Acts 1:8) and I trust that anything else that He needed us to know from those 40 days can be found in the balance of the NT, from Acts to Revelation.
We will probably know the whole story someday, but I doubt that it will be on this side of the grave.
God bless you!!
--Papa Smurf
Deuteronomy 29
29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
.There's not any mistery on Jesus eating and drinking in a material/physical body when he was already a spirit. Angels did the same in ancient times, like the ones who came to see Abraham (Gen. 18).
This is an interesting example:
Judg. 6:11 Later Jehovah’s angel came and sat under the big tree that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joʹash the Abiezrite. His son Gideon was beating out wheat in the winepress in order to hide it from Midian. 12 Jehovah’s angel appeared to him and said: “Jehovah is with you, you mighty warrior.” (...) 17 Then he said to him: “If, now, I have found favor in your eyes, show me a sign that you are the one speaking with me. 18 Please do not depart from here until I return with my gift and set it before you.” So he said: “I will stay here until you return.” 19 And Gideon went in and prepared a young goat and made unleavened bread from an eʹphah of flour. He put the meat in the basket and the broth in the cooking pot; then he brought them out to him and served them under the big tree.
20 The angel of the true God now said to him: “Take the meat and the unleavened bread and place them on the big rock there, and pour out the broth.” And he did so. 21 Then Jehovah’s angel stretched out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread, and fire flared up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Jehovah’s angel then vanished from his sight. 22 Gideon now realized that it was Jehovah’s angel.
At once Gideon said: “Alas, Sovereign Lord Jehovah, for I have seen Jehovah’s angel face-to-face!” 23 But Jehovah said to him: “Peace be with you. Have no fear; you will not die.”
There are many of them in the Scriptures. Why is it that difficult for some to understand what Jesus did after being resurrected?
Others brought up such sentiments. It’s a different point than the one raised, which is about believability.
Papa Smurf
Active Member
Hello again Wrangler, sadly, I was in a rush to finish and I made a blind post (having barely skimmed your thread before posting what I did), and I apologize for doing so (as I've now seen that most of what I wrote had already been discussed by others, just as you said). So, I will move on & try to answer the question that I believe you wanted me/others to answer from the get-go
In one of your posts (other than the OP) you asked if it was possible to believe that so little was written about the Lord's final 40 days with us. My answer to that question is "yes" (for many of the reasons that I've already given you, with the principal one being that the Lord Jesus had already completed all of the work that He came here to do by that time).
I'll take a look back at all of the post-Resurrection/pre-Ascension passages again with your thought in mind as I read them this time, and I'll see if I come to a different conclusion. I don't think that I will, but if I do, I'll certainly let you know
God bless you!!
--Papa Smurf
Thank you. I have a gift of high intelligence. One quality of this gift is to be able to entertain an idea without embracing it. Call it intellectual nimbleness.
By putting forth arguments for doubt of those not in the body, I sharpen my own arguments for faith.
In the final analysis, some evidence for a proposition is flimsy and yet, the deciding factor in compared to no evidence tilting the scales of justice and judgement the other way. In our society, with a scientific bent, many want scientific or even absolute proof. In most instances, this is an inappropriate standard. This struggle is born out by those in this thread who invoked words like "need" and "want" - AS IF the topic is subjective (dependent on the individual).
In most criminal cases, convictions are obtained by circumstantial evidence. Faith is mostly like that. Let's not kid ourselves. From Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases | Eisner Gorin LLP
Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or even a set of facts from which someone could infer the facts in question. For instance, a suspect in a crime was seen by a witness fleeing the scene on foot after a convenience store robbery.
Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases
Circumstantial evidence does not directly prove that a defendant committed a crime.
The “running away” from a crime scene is circumstantial evidence that they committed the robbery. On the flip is direct evidence, which directly proves any facts in question in a crime. In the same example, the witness observed the actual robbery and provided testimony at trial. This would be considered direct evidence.
Both direct and circumstantial evidence is legitimate proof that someone committed a crime. In fact, they are common in all state and federal criminal courts.
It is a fact that somebody could be convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial proof. Further, with the relatively common occurrence of false testimony and mistaken identification, circumstantial proof can be more reliable than direct evidence.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Literacy wasn't that big a thing back then, as it is now. The vast majority of people were illiterate. Jesus taught orally and commanded His Apostles to go out and preach and teach (orally). Nowhere do we see Jesus commanded the Apostles to write anything down, and I suspect most couldn't anyway, since they were fishermen, etc. It's only been in the last 100 years or so that universal literacy was of interest to mankind.
It is certainly true that criminal convictions usually turn on circumstantial evidence -- but the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Faith is not like that. If every proposition we must take on faith were circumstantially provable beyond a reasonable doubt, there would be little need for "faith" as that word is generally understood.Thank you. I have a gift of high intelligence. One quality of this gift is to be able to entertain an idea without embracing it. Call it intellectual nimbleness.
By putting forth arguments for doubt of those not in the body, I sharpen my own arguments for faith.
In the final analysis, some evidence for a proposition is flimsy and yet, the deciding factor in compared to no evidence tilting the scales of justice and judgement the other way. In our society, with a scientific bent, many want scientific or even absolute proof. In most instances, this is an inappropriate standard. This struggle is born out by those in this thread who invoked words like "need" and "want" - AS IF the topic is subjective (dependent on the individual).
In most criminal cases, convictions are obtained by circumstantial evidence. Faith is mostly like that. Let's not kid ourselves. From Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal Cases | Eisner Gorin LLP
Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact or even a set of facts from which someone could infer the facts in question. For instance, a suspect in a crime was seen by a witness fleeing the scene on foot after a convenience store robbery. Circumstantial Evidence in Criminal CasesCircumstantial evidence does not directly prove that a defendant committed a crime.The “running away” from a crime scene is circumstantial evidence that they committed the robbery. On the flip is direct evidence, which directly proves any facts in question in a crime. In the same example, the witness observed the actual robbery and provided testimony at trial. This would be considered direct evidence.Both direct and circumstantial evidence is legitimate proof that someone committed a crime. In fact, they are common in all state and federal criminal courts.It is a fact that somebody could be convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial proof. Further, with the relatively common occurrence of false testimony and mistaken identification, circumstantial proof can be more reliable than direct evidence.
This is a point I make to unbelievers all the time. The reasonable standard for faith is akin to the civil trial standard of "more likely than not."
I am convinced, a technique unbelievers use is to invoke a standard designed to fail faith. They invoke, not merely the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" but the absurd standard of "beyond ALL doubt" - even unreasonable doubt. This causes me to conclude that I often deal with irrational people who don't believe.
Similar threads
