/lit/ - Literature

This is what William Lane Craig basically built his resurrection apologetics off of. It’s a great book. Extremely thorough to such an extent that it could even be called tedious. He explores the conceptions of the body after death in various pagan and Jewish traditions, and then spends a chunk of the book talking about the usages and nuances of the comception of resurrection in Paul and the church fathers, and how it was bodily and how the less bodily conceptions only gradually developed, before finally exploring the Gospel narratives and showing how given the information found within the texts and how to best explain the origin of early Christian beliefs and narratives, that it is highly probable but not air-tight certain, (because that’s not how establishing historicity works) that there was an empty tomb, and that Jesus appeared to people bodily, friends and enemies, after death—and these were the origins of the peculiar beliefs of Christianity in contrast to mainstream Judaism and other failed messianic movements which died out as soon as the leader was killed. I thought it was a great book. It’s only strengthened by the prophetic angles of the OT, but the author doesn’t focus on that much, as he’s doing historical investigation.

>>19462218
If you have not begun so already, try to get into a habit of prayer. At first it may feel like you’re talking into a void, but believe me, prayer works and is real. Remember that even people who saw Jesus in the flesh had troubles like this, read Mark 9:24—“I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

>>19453458
I too wish there was a book on this. There’s a lot that could be said. Many people try to mix in pagan eastern doctrines with Christianity, not realizing that they are diametrically opposed in many ways, especially with Buddhism. Buddhism is the perfect control mechanism because of how close in many respects it is to the sort of reductionistic materialism that is the guiding ideology of our modern societies. The man and woman of Buddhism are not an integral unity of body, soul and spirit created in the image and likeness of the Holy Trinity, but rather an impermanent bundle of aggregates (skhandas) none of which have any sort of self-nature / essence in themselves. This is identical with modern materialism, as much as Buddhists would wish to deny it. This sort of idea is perfect for control. If you tell people they have no self, that the world is just suffering and the solution is to just meditate it away until you kill your ego and artificially numb yourself, they will be the perfect worker drones for Amazon and other corporations. Christianity on the other hand recognizes the value of persons that they are created in the divine image, that they are more than just atomized individuals, and that they deserve dignity and love. Buddhism is all about numbing that infinite thirst for God that humanity has at its core. This is what Duhkha is fundamentally, and this is why humanity feels so alienated in this world compared to the animals.

>>19399189
>Who cares if the trinity is in the OT, it's just a vapid theological development based on ancient texts
No it’s not, multiplicitly in the Godhead is present even in Genesis, bro. This is indicated in numerous places such as Exodus, Deuteronomy, Judges, etc. Many Jews understood this. Philo identified the Word with the Angel of the Lord himself, and he was not Christian.

>Fan fiction.
Luke 24:27 — “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning Himself.”

Exodus 24:10-11
>and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Exodus 33:20
>But,” He said, “you cannot see My face, for no one may see Me and live.”
‘Face’ refers to the essence of God here, as already in Exodus 24 they say the God of Israel standing before them.

1 John 1:18
>No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 14:19
>Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

So if we have numerous theophanies of God in the Old Testament, and numerous appearances of the Angel of the Lord who is directly identified as ‘God’ by those who see Him in scripture, and are told that no-one may see the ‘face’ of God, it goes to say that every appearance of God is the Son even in the Old Testament. Jesus told the disciples that he who has seen Him has seen the Father. No one has seen the Father, ergo every appearance of God in a human form is the Son. The entire OT is about Jesus

>>19385159
>it's a new low
>people have been seething for days against Daniel 9.24-27
Lol

>>19373448
Because he was in his heavenly form at first. The same thing that happened to his body in Luke 9 in the transfiguration—“As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning”. You should also remember that Jesus made himself recognized in these accounts after they invited him in for supper, he did not look different the entire time. Other accounts have him recognized immediately. In the ending of Mark 16 we have both reports of appearance in the form mentioned at the end of Luke and appearances that are implied to be normal. Mary Magdalene is said in John to recognize Jesus after she turns around and sees him. The other accounts in John have Jesus appear among them and he is recognized by the disciples. This evidently happened several times.