The problem with the "risen" Jesus.

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 89
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Luke 24:36-40 King James Version (KJV)

36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
So here is the risen Jesus. Nice

37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Why were they so scared, had he not taught his close inner circle the mysteries of resurrection?  Hadn't they expected their lord to be resurrected? surely they understood the practice, they had witnessed the raising of lazarus, had they not. Still, we read on: 
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
Exactly, why were they "terrified and affrighted". Why were they so troubled?

 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it isI myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye seeme have.
So it is made clear by Jesus himself that he was not a ghost,  alive not dead, still on earth and not yet ascended". But it is the last part of this verse that puzzles me most: he instructs them, his disciples,  to "handle me and see" ! But hadn't earlier  told Magdalene  "touch me not: for I am not yet ascended"

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

And when we return to John's gospel,there is also the story of " doubting Thomas".
Then 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 John 20:27
Yet this is the same Gospel where we are told earlier that Mary couldn't touch her master for he had not ascended?

#2
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The word that gets translated in John 20:17 to "touch" is in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.

This is consistent with what Jesus says earlier that is is necessary that he goes away(the Son of man Jesus) so that his disciples would be granted The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth.

The idea here is that they are not supposed to be clinging to this human from.


Indeed, Christians are not supposed to worship a man as God. Otherwise, why is it written in Romans..

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"?



So in other words, it is a problem that arises because of translation.








Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The word that gets translated in John 20:17 to "touch" is in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.
 So. It makes no difference. He had told Mary not to touch him. But then encourages a disciple to "touch" or stick his fingers in his wounds.

This is consistent with what Jesus says earlier that is is necessary that he goes away(the Son of man Jesus) so that his disciples would be granted The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of Truth 
So, what has that got to do with this glaring contradiction for the risen jesus himself?

The idea here is that they are not supposed to be clinging to this human from.
So, he refuses one to touch him but then - in the same gospel - he  encourages another to "reach out and touch my wound".. 

Indeed, Christians are not supposed to worship a man as God. Otherwise, why is it written in Romans..
Your are not addressing the contradiction from Jesus himself.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"?

This has nothing to do with if or not these people were wise or foolish. The query here is why did this risen so called "god" refuse the affection one person to touch him yet encouraged another to do the opposite?

Answer the question if you can, if not, spare me your babble, Mopac

So in other words, it is a problem that arises because of translation.


And still doesn't explain why he encouraged one disciple to touch him and refuses another.


Did Jesus prohibit Mary from touching him? YES
Did Mary touch the so called risen "god". NO
Did Jesus encourage a disciple to touch his wounds? YES

Question: Why did Jesus encourage one to touch him yet disencourage another?





#4
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
It certainly does answer your question. Did you ignore my answer?


#5
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
So in other words, it is a problem that arises because of translation.


I love the newbie declaring without any embarrassment that 1000yrs of 1000's of scholars just got it wrong.
It's fucking hilarious.
#6
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
every godist on this site are in the top 100 scripture deciphering of all time. 

Arrrrrrr scripture , you wouldn't have ya God speak anything but hey ?

I'll leave you all with two words. 
Biblical and scholar. 

Biblical scholar.
Say it with me ready ?  Andddddddddd
Biblical. 
Scholar.
Biblical scholar.
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Yet modern translations such as The New King James or The English Standard Version translate this passage in a way more faithful towards the original intended meaning.


The King James doesn't have copywrites, and for the most part it is an accurate translation of base texts that are closer to what the orthodox church uses(at least the New Testament). In this particular case, The King James doesn't capture the meaning of the text as well as it could. 

So you are actually the one who is at odds with scholarship. 

#8
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
What I'm saying could easily be confirmed by someone who is honest and actually cared to know what was true instead of dismissing everything that goes against their aversion to anything to do with God and/or scripture.

#9
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Thousands of years multiplied by thousands of scholars has been indisputably refuted by some simpleton on the internet. HOORAH.
You fucking moron.
#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
That simply isn't true, my position is in line with scholarship.


So it is actually the ones who dispute what I'm saying that are doing what you accuse me of.




#11
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Every time the bible doesn't say what you want it to say it's because of poor translation. Thousands of translations and not one of them correct.
Is your god incompetent?
#12
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
God made you, so God must have done something right.
#13
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You mean Zeus?
#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Are you saying that Zeus is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality?
#15
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@David
@bsh1
@disgusted
Thousands of years multiplied by thousands of scholars has been indisputably refuted by some simpleton on the internet. HOORAH.
You fucking moron.
Reported. Thanks.

Topic's author
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
The word that gets translated in John 20:17 to "touch" is in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.......
So in other words, it is a problem that arises because of translation
I see. So do we have a mistranslation and are you now saying that words in the New Testament have been mistranslated. Or are you just bending a few facts in a terrible attempt to play down this anomaly?

#17
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I'm still waiting for the contradiction.

Jesus tells Mary not to touch him (debating translations with anti-theists is silly) hours later, He invites the disciples to touch Him. Where is the contradiction?

Is it that Jesus could never be touched because that morning, He told Mary not to touch Him? Why could He not be touched hours later? What's the contradiction?

All I see here is Jesus giving Mary a reason why she should not touch Him, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: is it not possible that that reason no longer applied hours later when He met the disciples? Why assume it did?

Where is the contradiction?
Topic's author
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
It certainly does answer your question. Did you ignore my answer?
Not at all.  You say it may be down to translation. Ok. You then say it was to mean

 in the original greek "ἅπτομαι" which is closer to a clinging to rather than a simple poking.

OK. So Jesus according to you, said to Mary do not "cling" for I have not ascended. But this then does not alter the fact that "this god" then in the same text encourages another person to "Cling",  "touch", "put his fingers inside his wounds" or even  "poke him". You see what you have done is attempted to change the whole verse of "doubting Thomas" and that of the Magdalene. It doesn't work.

 It hasn't explained away why this "god" would deny one person to touch/cling to him and encourage another to do the opposite. 
here read it for yourself.. again. You cannot change these words to suit yourself when stuck into a corner.
Then 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 John 20:27
See that??? "reach out "THY HAND"      and and "THRUST IT"  into "MY" side.. <<<<<<That is touching where I come from. And DO NOT TOUCH ME  means   DO NOT REACH OUT YOUR HAND AND PLACE IT ON MY BODY WHICH INCLUDES MY SIDE. 


#19
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
No I'm saying that Zeus is capital g god.
#20
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Where's your zeus?
#21
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
What a banker. hahahahahahaha
#22
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
Where's your zeus?
Probably in the same place your intelligence is.
#23
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Nah it's not in my head, do you want to buy a clue since you don't have any you nipfhit.
Topic's author
#24
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
is it not possible that that reason no longer applied hours later when He met the disciples?

Are you asking me or telling me?
The  contradiction is that this so called "god" encouraged one person to touch him and disallowed another to touch him.

The scripture mentions nothing about it being ok to do so later in the day. The risen man was still  earthbound, he tells us he is not a spirit and he has obviously not descended at that time, as I am reasonably confident it would have been mentioned if he had "ascended to his father". 

If you believe it was somehow all to do with "time or timing" please provide us with the evidence. Until then,  this still stands as yet another somewhat bias,anomalous contradiction, by these gospel writers.

It is interesting that both yourself and Mopac have different reasons for this anomalous contradiction.
#25
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Are you asking me or telling me?
Does it matter?

The  contradiction is that this so called "god" encouraged one person to touch him and disallowed another to touch him. 
Several hours later. So what? He should be always either touchable or untouchable? That is an inane assumption. Why assume that?

The scripture mentions nothing about it being ok to do so later in the day.
The scripture also mentions nothing about it being NOT ok to do so later in the day.

The risen man was still  earthbound, he tells us he is not a spirit and he has obviously not descended at that time, as I am reasonably confident it would have been mentioned if he had "ascended to his father". 
And what is that " confidence" built on? Is the Holy Spirit speaking to you? The bible doesn't have to mention every single thing, and when it doesn't, it does not necessarily mean it didn't happen. Think a little.

If you believe it was somehow all to do with "time or timing" please provide us with the evidence.
The evidence is the words of Jesus Himself. He said to Mary, don't touch me, and several hours later says to the disciples, "come touch me." Are you trying to be silly?

Until then,  this still stands as yet another somewhat bias,anomalous contradiction, by these gospel writers.
Nothing you say "stands" because you say it. This is debate. Only facts stand. Your opinions don't.

It is interesting that both yourself and Mopac have different reasons for this anomalous contradiction.
No we don't. Mopac is right. Jesus was saying, "do not detain me". But I know from history you aren't bright enough to debate linguistics. I also know I can prove you wrong using your own childish interpretation, so I did that.

Nothing becomes wrong because you slap the word " anomalous" on it. Unless you can tell us why Jesus should have been perpetually touchable or untouchable, your assumption is just ignorant assumption. 
#26
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
No Stepehen , you are still not accepting my answer.

It is definitely a translation issue. First point.

Second point. The man Jesus has to go away to fulfill everything before, that Jesus has to go away so they receive the Spirit of Truth.
#27
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Every time the bible doesn't say what the godist wants it to say it's a translation error, that's amazing given the number of translations. But the godist is always right and either the translator is wrong or god is, a toss of a coin solves that conundrum.
#28
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Yet, you yourself can look up the original Greek and. see for yourself what the words mean.

I think maybe you are more upset that the scripture doesn't say what you want it to say. Translating texts is not easy, and human error does occur.

What I'm saying is in line with scholarship. What you are saying is a projection of your own arbitrariness and lack for real respect of truth.

The translation you are mocking is over 300 years old by the way. A fine translation, but no translation is perfect.


And even then, scripture is not taken as an idol before God, and that is a message that is ingrained in scripture.






#29
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
If you claim the translations are wrong then that means your beliefs are wrong. Why should anyone then take you seriously when you sink your own boat.
#30
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Goldtop
My beliefs are wrong and so are yours. To admit this is to admit sin. 

The Ultimate Reality is what is true, and that is what God is. That is something that goes beyond anyone's belief on the matter.