Occasional-ism “a non-Deistic understanding of the World”

Derf

Well-known member
I believe I answered this here: "there is obv ... some sort of mapping to His old body in His new body"
Enough that He didn't have to manufacture scars on a new body, for tge reason below.
It was analogical, you're taking it too literally. I meant that it appears plausible that He had the ability to alter his appearance to others.
If so, then the scars He showed them were fake, or of something that were not intrinsically evidential to His resurrection. I don't think I'm taking that part too literally.
👍
 

Idolater

Popetard
Enough that He didn't have to manufacture scars on a new body, for tge reason below.

If so, then the scars He showed them were fake

Nope. Nobody said the scars were faked or manufactured, nothing like that was suggested or implied or alluded to or said. I said "there is obv ... some sort of mapping to His old body in His new body".

What has been said is all in accord with that, our new bodies, will be able to change our appearance to other people, on demand, but we have no evidence that our Lord could turn Himself into an apparent woman, He was always hiding as a man, not a woman. We also don't have any reason to think His hair color or whether He had a beard or not, e.g., would have changed. All that's being proposed is that to a stranger, for example, somebody walking around with a mug shot, somebody who's looking for you, that you'd have the ability to evade detection in that kind of situation and easily. Scars don't enter into it if you can disguise your hands and feet under longer cloth. Or, perhaps you can vanish your scars on demand, but your "resting" state body, your default, is going to have those scars. idk, but all I'm saying is it's not that much of a stretch, everything I'm saying is consistent with Scripture. I'm not saying I'm right, but it would explain why people who should have recognized Him, didn't. He didn't WANT to be recognized. And we're going to have that same ability, when we have our new bodies.

, or of something that were not intrinsically evidential to His resurrection. I don't think I'm taking that part too literally.

👍

Nothing like that was suggested or implied or alluded to or said.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Nope. Nobody said the scars were faked or manufactured, nothing like that was suggested or implied or alluded to or said. I said "there is obv ... some sort of mapping to His old body in His new body".

What has been said is all in accord with that, our new bodies, will be able to change our appearance to other people, on demand, but we have no evidence that our Lord could turn Himself into an apparent woman, He was always hiding as a man, not a woman. We also don't have any reason to think His hair color or whether He had a beard or not, e.g., would have changed. All that's being proposed is that to a stranger, for example, somebody walking around with a mug shot, somebody who's looking for you, that you'd have the ability to evade detection in that kind of situation and easily. Scars don't enter into it if you can disguise your hands and feet under longer cloth. Or, perhaps you can vanish your scars on demand, but your "resting" state body, your default, is going to have those scars. idk, but all I'm saying is it's not that much of a stretch, everything I'm saying is consistent with Scripture. I'm not saying I'm right, but it would explain why people who should have recognized Him, didn't. He didn't WANT to be recognized. And we're going to have that same ability, when we have our new bodies.



Nothing like that was suggested or implied or alluded to or said.
To what purpose in our resurrection, or His, for that matter? Wouldn't it be easier to say that He blinded their eyes so that they didn't recognize Him rather than that He changed His appearance? Both might be in His power, but one is deceitful to those who love Him.
 

Idolater

Popetard
To what purpose in our resurrection, or His, for that matter? Wouldn't it be easier to say that He blinded their eyes so that they didn't recognize Him rather than that He changed His appearance? Both might be in His power, but one is deceitful to those who love Him.

How aren't they both equally deceitful.
 

Idolater

Popetard
It's not a lie to withold some pieces of information, unless you first say you are going to tell the whole truth

I still don't understand. How is it not deceitful to change your appearance on command, versus blind someone's eyes on command? They seem the same to me. If you see deceit in one but not in the other, can you explain why? or elaborate more?
 

Derf

Well-known member
I still don't understand. How is it not deceitful to change your appearance on command, versus blind someone's eyes on command? They seem the same to me. If you see deceit in one but not in the other, can you explain why? or elaborate more?
Do you tell everyone that you encounter your name, birthday, social security number, and mother's maiden name? Is it deceitful to withhold that information?
 

Idolater

Popetard
Do you tell everyone that you encounter your name, birthday, social security number, and mother's maiden name? Is it deceitful to withhold that information?

No. But we're discussing the difference between changing one's appearance vs. intervening in how your eyes or vision works. Both of those seem different from withholding information another party doesn't have a right to know anyway.
 

Derf

Well-known member
No. But we're discussing the difference between changing one's appearance vs. intervening in how your eyes or vision works. Both of those seem different from withholding information another party doesn't have a right to know anyway.
But we're also not sure what He was doing. Was He making some effort to blind their eyes to His real identity, or just they were not expecting Him to be there with them, and so didn't recognize Him? Either would fit the passage, imo.

If He changed His appearance, that's His business, and if they didn't ask, He didn't have to tell. But this seems weird to me. At the end "their eyes were opened", which doesn't point to a supernatural change to another person's appearance. Maybe a change where the last time they had seen Him was either fully bearded (but His had been plucked out) or after He was so beat and punched and bloodied that in His (mostly) healed state, they were not able to connect his current looks with His most recent looks.
 

VladtheDestroyer

Well-known member
No. But we're discussing the difference between changing one's appearance vs. intervening in how your eyes or vision works. Both of those seem different from withholding information another party doesn't have a right to know anyway.

There is perhaps a 3rd option. Depending on how our eyesight works, it could be they were uncapable of recognizing Him. The mind fills in a lot of gaps in our vision. Maybe some of these gaps could not be accurately filled in before Jesus ascended to the Father.
 
Top