Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


PAUL SAYS THE RISEN BODY WILL BE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE UNRISEN BODY

Paul is the only writer we have who directly claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 tries to explain how the resurrection body is not physical the way our bodies are now but is more spiritual than physical. Romans 8:11 has Paul saying that God will make alive our mortal bodies just like Christ's. That allows for dramatic transformation so that the risen body is very unlike the unrisen When Paul wrote that flesh and blood cannot inherit Godís kingdom it is said he explained what he meant. He said the perishable cannot inherit the imperishable in Heaven so flesh and blood just mean our fragile flesh and blood the way they are now. That needs a lot of renovation so the end result will be very unlike the body we now have.

Paul boasted he would reveal a mystery to the people of Corinth. He said not all will die but when the last trumpet sounds the living will not die but will simply turn into the same kind of imperishable beings as the dead will be when they rise. They will have a celestial body like the stars. The transformation will be instant. This is odd. In the light of how Christianity expected Jesus to return soon and in those days and thus raise the dead why is he saying it is mystery to say that there will be Christians alive when Jesus comes back and they will just change without dying? It could not have been the first time they would have heard that they would change if Jesus happens to come back. It looks like all the early Church did until then was say Jesus was alive but said nothing about what they meant by this - until now. Now from a vague resurrection report the Church was moving into detail and specifics. They were making it up as they went along. The argument that they were learning that they might never die is thin. It would be a strange gospel that would teach you that you must be killed at Jesus' return so that you can rise up. It is obvious that a transformation leaves you being very different from being a normal human being. Very different indeed - it is amazing and unimaginable.

The Second Letter of Peter which admits to being influenced by Paul and in accord with him recounts the transfiguration of Jesus and the writer says he witnessed it and heard God saying Jesus was his son. Yet he said that the word of the Old Testament was even more sure than this! He had reason to believe that he had had an illusion albeit a possibly divinely inspired illusion. When what he hinted was a doubtful miracle was all he could present as evidence for Jesus it shows that there was nothing. And this coming from a tradition of Peter the rock Jesus supposedly built his Church on! When he thinks the Old Testament is the sole source of reliable truth he is against the production of any gospels and stresses that we must listen to this word of God until the new dawn of resurrection morn comes (2 Peter 1:19). The early Church thought that post-resurrection visions and the empty tomb of Jesus were not important reasons to believe in Jesus compared to the Old Testament saying Jesus would rise from the dead.

The transfiguration story says that Jesus took Peter and James and John up a mountain and his robes turned pure white and his face shone like the sun and they could not believe their eyes literally and then Moses and Elijah appeared and talked with Jesus. NOT ONE OF THE RESURRECTION STORIES IS LIKE THAT OR SAYS JESUS LOOKED GLORIOUS!!! What we read in the transfiguration is what we should be reading about in the resurrected Jesus tales. And we see nothing like it. The story goes that the three apostles were banned by Jesus from telling anyone until after his resurrection from the dead. It reads more like an example of false history where people make things up years after they have supposedly happened. Why would Jesus care if they told or not? If the apostles hallucinated something on the mountain and Jesus died and one or two women had dodgy visions of him the apostles could have been susceptible to thinking Jesus rose. The transfiguration could have been the spark that ignited Christianity not the resurrection as such. The transfiguration is not claimed to show that Jesus' body was different from a normal human body. But it proves that if the resurrection visions were anything like it then the visions prove nothing about Jesus being forever glorious or immortal or having a spiritual body.

Second Peter thought so little of empty tombs and rising bodies that he eliminated the evidence for a physical resurrection.