One thought on “NEW VIDEO: “Is the Qur’an Less Trustworthy Than the Bible? Response to Alan Shlemon’s BAD Argument””

1. “LUKE 24:36-43 narrates a recognition scene, an appearance of the risen Jesus to the Eleven and others. Jesus appears suddenly and greets his startled followers (w. 36-37), addresses their doubts/disputations (διαλογισμοί [v. 38)]), describes the composition of his body (v. 39), shows them his hands and feet (v. 40), and eats some fish in their presence (w. 41-43). Numerous commentators note the “apologetic” interest of the author in this passage, emphasizing a “materialistic” or “bodily” view of the resurrection appearances. Rhetorically, the subject of this passage is Jesus’ postresurrection bodily existence, concerning which πνεύμα (“spirit”) and σαρξ καΐ όστέα (“flesh and bones”) are juxtaposed (v. 39). The nar­rator connects the fear of the disciples with their perception that they were seeing a “spirit” (v. 37), and Jesus identifies their internal dialogue as the source of their disturbed state of mind (v. 38). Resolution comes when Jesus corrects the misperception of the Eleven, the authentic resurrection witnesses in Luke-Acts (Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:22; 2:32; 5:32; 10:39-41), who here think they have seen a πνεύμα (v. 37). Jesus puts the Eleven’s (and the readers’) disputing hearts to rest by dis­playing his risen body, saying, “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; han­ dle me and see that a spirit [πνεύμα] does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (v. 39). Luke thus identifies the disciples’ disputations/doubts as resulting from a “pneumatic” view of Jesus’ postresurrection body and offers a response to such a view.

   ******Although commentators generally agree that Luke 24:36-43 is apologetically motivated, there is considerable disagreement as to the precise view or views Luke may have been opposing.*******

   In this essay, I evaluate proposals that Luke 24:36-43 provides a narrative answer to (1) ghostly interpretations of the appearances, (2) magical-daimonic interpretations, (3) docetism, (4) Marcionism, and (5) Pauline views of the nature of the resurrection.

   Luke’s apologetic interest here need not revolve around one such option to the exclusion of others. Any viable proposal, however, should be consistent with the plausible linguistic, cultural, and theolog­ical setting of the author, and with the narrative and theological interests displayed in Luke 24 and the rest of Luke-Acts.

   *****The fact that Luke locates these “doubts” narratively within the Eleven’s circle suggests that insider (even “apostolic”) views of the resurrection are the subject here, rather than outsider views (contrast Matt 27:62-66; 28:11-15)******

   . Although later readers deployed this narrative apologetically against the alternative interpretations of the resurrection appearances noted above, I will argue that there are good grounds for considering Paul’s (or Pauline) views of the resurrection body as the object of Luke’s apologetic.” – Daniel Smith, Seeing a Pneuma(tic Body): The Apologetic Interests of Luke 24:36-43

   ////

   the gospels themselves are apologetic forgeries which are countering other versions of christianity.

   there is not one UNIFIEd ressurection view in the gospels.

   LikeLike

   January 11, 2022 at 3:27 pm Reply