@bob_the_fisherman Said 
Then you are not infallible when interpreting scripture as you claim - a fact which no one doubts anyway.
Honestly MCB, this is tiresome.
I have never claimed infallibility in anything, I simply didn't see it let alone interpret it. However it changes nothing in my beliefs so no victory for you, again.
It doesn't change anything, because it doesn't prove anything. The only new information it provides is that the two did actually go back to Jerusalem. It doesn't say who they were, or which of the many disciples they spoke to, or how long they stayed.
One thing it most definitely doesn't say, which is telling by it absence, is whether they were with the same disciples as were gathered in the room behind the locked door on either
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Context, MCB. When the scripture you infallibly render says that one of the 12, Thomas, was not with the disciples, as it does say, it says that he was not there, not that all of them were not there. The wording at least very strongly implies the others were there.
I have never said he was there so why are you arguing over that? IN fact I have stressed teh fact that he wasn't.
You seem to be losing t in your desperation to be right Bob. That's yet another reason I am glad I rely on Holy Spirit for the understanding of scripture I don't need to worry whether or not I am right , because it's nothing to do with me.
No Bob that is precisely what I am not doing. I am not second guessing who was there since I am not told by the scripture, it is you who is doing that. I accept the fact that scripture doesn't tell us who was there at any of those three meetings, the two in Jerusalem and the one o the road to Emmaus, which is why I am saying that we have no idea who it was, or even if any of the 12 were amongst them.
You seem to be carefully ignoring the fact that Jesus had many more than 12 disciples, though Apostate Christianity does seem to avoid that fact.
Scripture tells us that he had up to 500 at one time, so who knows which of them scripture tells us about at those points.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
So, therefore, it was not Christ in his body that appeared? Again I ask you, why did he tell them to look at his hands and feet if he was not in his body? What is the point? What does it prove?
I have never said it wasn't the Christ, it is just obvious from what the scriptures tell us that it is a materialised spirit body, not a physical one, and that it does not look the same.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
They did not recognise Him, but thought he was a ghost, and said later that he was Christ. The two on the road did not recognise him but went to the disciples and told them it was Christ, after He had broke bread and opened their eyes?
I see.
Wow. God can do things that people cannot do. I know that is a surprise to you, but Christians just take it for granted.
Yes God can do things no-one else can do. After all, He can have His son send His spirit to help and guide people like me when we need it, and enable us to do things which were not possible to us before.
It is capable of appearing in a locked room on two occasions.
No-one recognises him until ether he tells them who he is, or he does something that makes them realise, or as the meeting Emmaus tells us their eyes are opened to who he is.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Because it was his own body. If not, the whole thing is a confidence trick aimed at deceiving us. Where did his body go? Why would God remove the body? Or, did the Jews or disciples steal it? Why was there such a big deal made of the empty tomb if not that Christ had done what he said he would do, and raised his body from the dead (a thing which, of course, you claim is "impossible" )?
You are the only one of us being deceived by anything, and it is not any confidence trick on God's part
What was the point of Jesus appearing in a materialised spirit body and not is own?
For one it shows God's power to do so.
For another the fact that it prevents them from immediately recognising him accentuates the realisation that God has done exactly what he promised and resurrected His son.
It shows His power, and the ability of Jesus to control a spirit body and do what he wants with it.
Even if he had performed such a ridiculous magic trick with a physical body, why would he dos so when to use a materialised Spirit body is so much easier and more effective, and even if he had it would not have been the same body because God would have had to completely destroy it and then rebuild it, still destroying you hope that it was the same body.
Even then you still have the knotty problem that no-one who knew him recognised him until they were either told who he was, or some mannerism betrayed the fact to them.
Sorry Bob anything but a materialised spirit body simly doesn't make any sense.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Well, that is true, no one can really believe that God is God and say he could not possibly put the physical body of Christ in a locked room because God can not do miraculous things, which is your basic tenet here in your rationalised version of God.
Again Bob you are putting words in my mouth, so to speak.
Is not creating a spirit body that Christ can materialise not miraculous? Why does it have to be a conjuring trick to be miraculous enough for you?
Are not the many miracles God ahs performed enough for you to know He is God?
What about the parting of the Red Sea, moving walls of water at least two miles apart and holding them there while somewhere in the region of 6 million people, their wagons and their livestock crossed over?
@bob_the_fisherman Said
And, in relation to this, I ask that you read the account of Phillip and the eunuch, wherein, after Phillip had baptised the eunuch, Phillip was taken away by the spirit, to a new place, Azotus (cf., Acts 8:36-40). Are you seriously going to suggest that God can supernaturally transport people vasts distances, unless there is a wall in the way?
Where does it say Phillip was taken away by Spirit?
Acts 8:26 "However, Jehovah’s angel spoke to Philip, saying: “Rise and go to the south to the road that runs down from Jerusalem to Ga?za.” (This is a desert road.) 27 With that he rose and went, and, look! an E·thi·o?pi·an eunuch, a man in power under Can·da?ce queen of the E·thi·o?pi·ans, and who was over all her treasure. He had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 but he was returning and was sitting in his chariot and reading aloud the prophet Isaiah. 29 So the spirit said to Philip: “Approach and join yourself to this chariot."
Nowhere does it talk about Philip being transported. He was told to "arise and go", then he was told to "Approach" the chariot and run alongside.
Again you are letting your imagination run riot and reading things into scripture which simply aren't there.
God doesn't waste energy, even though He has more than enough for all his and our needs.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Do you honestly think that God would be foiled by a craftily placed wall?
Craftily placed wall? It was a building Bob, it wasn't craftily placed at all, lol, you really are letting your imagination run away with you here.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
We do not need to know that, to be honest. You said that *no one* that was in the room with Thomas, had seen the wounds on the body of Christ. Yet we know that the people to whom Christ appeared and showed his hands and feet *were* in the room when Christ appeared to Thomas.
How do we know that, scripture doesn't tell us who was there, simply disciples, the 12 aren't mentioned at all only Thomas?
we are not even told if the two meetings, 7 days apart, were in the same room let alone if the same people were there.
Again you are interpreting it to suit your beliefs.
Of course we aren't told they weren't either, but the point it that we aren't told.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
We also know that Thomas said he will not believe unless he touches the wounds.
John 20:24.
Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples said, "We have seen the Lord!"
But Thomas said to them, "
unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my fingers where the nails were, and my hands into his side, I will not believe."
Have I ever argued with that? No I haven't, and it changes nothing, I have said all along "a materialised spirit body" some thing which as the disobedient angels proved, before they flood is capable of being touched, touching, and even fathering children.
It would be easy for Thomas to touch them even in a materialised body where thy had only just been made to appear, or are you saying God and Christ are not capable of that?
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Now, consider what *is* said here. The disciples saw Christ, who showed them his hands and feet. They say to Thomas we have seen the Lord, and he responds, 'I will not believe unless I touch the wounds.'
Does this make sense if the disciples saw a Christ that was not in his body, and that did not have the wounds of crucifixion on him? No. It doesn't. It only makes sense if the disciples said to Thomas something along the lines of that they had seen him, and seen his body and the wounds, and that they knew it was Christ.
Then his comment that he will not believe unless he touches the wound, makes sense.
In your version of it, it makes no sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense. It is your version, that relies on you adding the bit about the disciples telling Thomas about the wounds, that makes no real sense.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Plus, if Christ showed these wounds to Thomas in order to make him believe, but the wounds were not in Christ's body because he did not have his body, it makes no sense. It is in fact a lie if the wounds are not the wounds, because the body is not his body.
Why is that so?
If Christ did not have the wounds in a materialised spirit body he could easily have created those wounds as and when he wished, and removed them again also. He only had to have the appearance of the wounds, even if your theory is right they would not be exactly as before because some healing would have taken place, certainly enough to stop them bleeding. A physical body heals, and in 8 days, by the time of the second meeting a perfect human body, as Christ's original was, would have healed quite dramatically. I have had massive wounds which have looked nothing like their original state in a week, when I was younger and healed quicker, and that was with an imperfect human body.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Rubbish, we know that the original two were there when Christ first appeared, and we know that some that were there at that time, were also there when Christ reappeared. So you are wrong that no one in that room had seen the stigmata - your version of it is incoherent.
We know from scripture that the two from the meeting at or on the way to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem. We do not know how long they stayed, or if they were at ether of the two Jerusalem meetings.
We are not told who they were, though it is unlikely that they were amongst the 12 because they almost certainly would have been named.
We do not know who was at the first meeting, and apart from Thomas we are to told who was at the meeting 7 days later either. It is unlikely that any of the 12 were there, though obviously not impossible, and at the second meeting it is unlikely that any of the 12 apart from Thomas were there. Apart from that only 11 of the 12 were still alive at the time since Judas had killed himself and we are not told, I don't think anyway, exactly when Matthias was inducted into the 12.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
unless of course you need to speculate wildly to fit with your paradigm you mean. Nowhere does it say that Christ was not in his own body. You deny the power of God, but I don't.
It is not me who is speculating wildly Bob, it is you.
It is you who is speculating about who was or wasn't at any of the three meetings because scripture only names Thomas at the third one.
It is you who is speculating, despite the lack of information, that the two from the first meeting were at either of the other two meetings. We do not even know if it is the same group of disciples at the second and third meeting, or how many were there.
It is you who is speculating that Philip was transported by spirit to meet the Ethiopian Eunuch, despite the fact that all scripture says is that he was told to "rise and go" indicating that he was under his own power, just being directed by the spirit.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
I was giving two alternative views of what happened, yours and mine, and arguing that yours is not coherent.
I know that is what you were trying to do Bob but it doesn't work.
All it shows is how much you are adding to scripture to make yours work.
How much speculation you are having to use because of what we are not told.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Rubbish. This makes no sense. The disciples say they have seen Christ, and Thomas basically says, 'unless I see the wounds and touch them, I will not believe.' Why is it more credible to believe he said that, than to believe the disciples told him they had seen him, and seen his hands and feet, and had seen the wounds, at which point he responded that he would need to touch them in order to believe?
Simply put, your view is not credible.
It is more credible than yours for all the reasons I have given above.
@bob_the_fisherman Said
Where in the text does it say that? It doesn't. So you are allowed to add to the text, but I am not allowed to speculate on which scenario is more likely? how does that work?
What is the point of showing fake wounds on a body that is not his own? Your view is pointless.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
No all that it says is that he showed them his hands and feet and told Thomas to touch them. However I have not added anything to scripture which changes the meaning, unlike you who has added much to it and assumed much that we cannot know in order to fit your version.
What don;t we know?
We don't know which of Jesus many disciples, apart from Thomas, is at any of the 3 meetings, and he was at the last one only.
We do not know that any of the remaining 11 of the 12 was there, apart from Thomas at the last of the three.
We do not even know if any of those at the three meetings was at more than one of them.
we simply aren't told and therefore cannot guarantee it, though it is admittedly likely that there is some commonality between the second and third meetings.
Pot, Kettle? I think not Bob.
Sep 10, 2012 @ 22:06:55
Moderator
