My point was that an empty tomb is hardly requisite for a resurrection. The bodies of most of the people that the Catholic church expects to be resurrected are long gone.
Was there any rhyme or reason with these statements? Have you ever seen a body resurrected after less than one week and still have a tomb that didn't become empty? Certainly if the Pharisees or even Rome itself wanted to end what some people call a fable of Jesus being resurrected... all they had to do was just point to a filled tomb.
Non sequitur.
First Ockham's Razor and now non sequitur and both misapplied... FB.. are you doing OK?
The disciples supposedly encountered a Jesus whom they frequently didn't recognize at first, who walked through walls and spontaneously disappeared. They clearly didn't think that he was the same as prior to death. If, as CCC maintains, our bodies aren't necessary to our resurrection, why would Jesus' body have been essential?
Personally, I don't have a problem with this. When people are in great grief and in great fear, their perceptions are altered. Personally, if my son walked through a wall and spontaneously disappeared, I may not have recognized him either.
Of course, ones understanding as to why Jesus body is essential would be simply a theological position as to the 'why'.
As to my position... We receive a new body because of His resurrection, He holds on to His body as an eternal testament of His crucifixion, redemptive power and statement that death has been overcome. It is the union of spiritual and physical into the spiritual/physical body that has always been the plan of God for man. This isn't the Gospel Truth but just my viewpoint.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM