In John 20 when Thomas refuses to believe Jesus has risen unless he can personally inspect the wounds from his crucifixion, why does the gospel writer assume that Jesus’s resurrected body will still have the physical scars of his death on it? Would he have also retained the lacerations from his flogging and the crown of thorns? I don’t recall ever seeing a discussion of the implications of this for a theology of the resurrected body, particularly that of Paul (whose writings predate the Gospel of John by some decades), who argues in Corinthians (as Bart has noted in a number of places) that Jesus’s resurrected body was a glorified, “spiritual” body. I think he would have been shocked at the notion that it would have still appeared bearing the marks of torture and death. Thoughts?
Jesus had not yet ascended to Father. Jesus was still in the flesh after the resurrection. John 20:17 The spiritual body exists in the Heavens where Father is. Here on Earth is the natural body of flesh. 🤷♂️
The natural body of flesh of Jesus must be resurrected so that a future resurrection of the natural body of flesh of mankind can also occur. 🤷♂️
(Note: I’m just making up this explanation as I go. I have no formal education on how to answer the question according to Denomination and Doctrine.)
John 20:20 The passage does not mention anything about Jesus stripping down nude so they could see his nude backside too where the flogging wounds would be. And Thomas does not request to the nude backside of Jesus, but only the hands and side of the abdomen. John 20:25
δηθεν ην
Supposedly it was 🤷♂️
Paul seems to have a view rather similar to the Middle Platonist/Stoic viewpoint. The pneuma, the “spirit”, was embodied. Mark bypasses the whole issue by his brilliant use of the Empty Tomb. By the later gospels there were probably voices questioning the reality of a bodily resurrection. The post-Easter episodes with Jesus might have been intended to drive home the idea that, yes, Jesus was really bodily resurrected, an idea that gentile converts might have had trouble accepting. The resurrected Jesus wasn’t just a vision, which is ironic of course, since the probability is that the first resurrection experiences were visions!
The spirit body had passed through the closed doors, but then afterwards became the resurrected natural body of flesh.
Well if the author Robert is reading is correct and John has a similar view to Paul then Jesus’ resurrection body is not a body of flesh. The resurrection body is composed of pneuma, “spirit”, not sarx, “flesh”. This is an odd idea to moderns who are raised with the concept of a dichotomy between a fleshly body and an immaterial spirit. To these ancients the pneuma was embodied not immaterial. It was just made of an infinitely finer substance than the flesh. The stars were thought to be composed of pneuma and considered by many to be divine intelligences.
To the ancient Hebrews there was no life without the body. This is why they came to believe in a bodily resurrection in the first place. it useful to remember that Genesis 1,26-27
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
was originally taken quite materially and literally. The idea that the imago dei primarily reflected rationality, free will, and moral capacity came much much later. The Gods were embodied. Just a different kind of body. See ** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Mark S Smith.
Yes, I remember but I don’t understand the LXX Genesis 1:26 the same way as the KJV.
I understand it that the Angels created mankind to be submissive to God because the Angels were also submissive to God and as a comparison; the animals were to be submissive to mankind. I think that’s how the Quran understood the LXX passage too, way back when 1300 years ago.
The verb εικω I think is where the word εικονα is derived from.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The road to nowhere. Words.
Forgive me. I’m afraid I’ve stumbled into something I know very little or nothing about. I have seen a few lectures about the question of dark energy wherein was brought up the periodic table of elements and I have a little recollection of that from an elementary chemistry class years ago. I won’t say it’s not an interesting idea!
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)