• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Why Didn't the Disciples Recognise Jesus?

Xanatic*

Xanatic*

Antediluvian
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
5,482
Location
I'm in a really good place right now.
Accordin to the books of the New Testament, when the disciples went to the grave of Jesus, they didn't recognise him at first. They thought he was the local gardener or similar. As if he had physically changed or disguised himself. Wether the resurrection is a real event or a made up story, that part still seems puzzling. Was Jesus faking his own death, to go off to India or one of those odd places claim he has gone? If he did rise from the dead, why would his appearance have changed? Any thoughts?
 
He was Doctor Who, obviously. Or some other alien that, upon death, regenerates a form that is an imperfect copy of its predecessor. Or, having died, he was emaciated. Weight change can considerably change a person's appearance. Or it really was a different person, covering for Jesus while he made his escape. Just a distraction.
 
The version of this incident recorded in Luke 24:

http://biblehub.com/luke/24.htm

... is specifically phrased so as to indicate they were prevented from recognizing him.

There's a listing of variant phrasings at:

http://biblehub.com/luke/24-16.htm

... all of which insinuate something kept them from identifying a stranger as Jesus. One such phrasing even states that God prevented them from recognizing him.

In any case, this particular episode involved only two of the disciples who were walking and talking together. Some versions state they were simply strolling around in the countryside, while others claim they were hiking to Emmaus.

The non-recognition bit doesn't appear in all the gospel accounts that mention this incident. I think it's the account in Mark that simply says two disciples reported having encountered Jesus, but the other disciples didn't believe them.
 
Xanatic* said:
Accordin to the books of the New Testament, when the disciples went to the grave of Jesus, they didn't recognise him at first. They thought he was the local gardener or similar. As if he had physically changed or disguised himself. Wether the resurrection is a real event or a made up story, that part still seems puzzling. Was Jesus faking his own death, to go off to India or one of those odd places claim he has gone? If he did rise from the dead, why would his appearance have changed? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well they had been on the piss the night before. Judas had come into some money.
 
I think there was probably more than one Jesus.
It was a franchise operation, and the real Jesus had many deputies.
It eventually grew into the massive multi-level marketing operation that is the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Somewhere on this MB I've repeated the theory that Jesus was rescued from crucifiction by (e.g.) Joseph of Arimathea. But following his vile ordeal, he was physically (and probably) psychologically changed. So perhaps he didn't want to be recognised either.

Only if you consider he did actually rise from the dead is there a problem.
 
Even if he didn't rise from the dead, it still seems an odd thing to write in for someone who wanted you to believe he did.
 
Xanatic* said:
Even if he didn't rise from the dead, it still seems an odd thing to write in for someone who wanted you to believe he did.
Click to expand...
Did he?

Perhaps that's the whole point, that having survived, he's lost faith with everything he previously believed.
After all, he didn't write his own story, it was others, who still 'wanted to believe', that wrote his story after the crucifiction.
 
Exactly, it was written by people who wanted you to think he was the son of god and had resurrected. So why put this in?
 
Xanatic* said:
Even if he didn't rise from the dead, it still seems an odd thing to write in for someone who wanted you to believe he did.
Click to expand...

Unless the disciples needed either:

(a) an explanation for why the temporarily returned (actual) Jesus seemed to be changed or different; or ...
(b) an explanation for why some (different) person they claimed to be the resurrected Jesus wasn't recognizable as the same person who'd been crucified.
 
I'm back to Theology tomorrow at TCD. Well I hope I am, was only told on 18 September that module, Prophets, Seers & Sages, was definitely going ahead this Term and I was away last week. Loyola Institute & TCD Theology dept a bit disorganised in general.

I'm also doing Greek & Roman Myth and Religion.
 
Apparently not being recognised after resurrection is a problem in saviour myths.Read Richard Carrier, On The Historicity of Jesus, and Proving History.
 
Perhaps the not recognising bit was put in to indicate that Jesus was now transfigured in some way? If he looked exactly the same as when alive, then perhaps a cynic might claim that he obviously never died in the first place.What exactly is Jesus supposed to be post Resurrection, anyway? Is he still part human, part God, or is he now all God?
 
Perhaps he just bathed, shaved and had a haircut?
They probably thought 'that can't be Jesus, he's a well-known soap-dodger'.
 
Monstrosa said:
Apparently not being recognised after resurrection is a problem in saviour myths.Read Richard Carrier, On The Historicity of Jesus, and Proving History.
Click to expand...

Theres also the question of copy errors in texts and material added by copyists/translators.
 
And then there's the ambiguity of some ancient wording, leading translators to go for a meaning that they think is appropriate.
 
Is there not an implication that they had difficulty in recognising him as The Messiah, the arisin one?

Perhaps he appeared groggy, from the effects of death-wine/mandragora....http://www.mandrakeconnection.com...and the futureshock backwash from all that upcoming expectation
 
I've translated enough dead languages (none of the relevant ones here but the principle's the same) to know that if I can't read a text in the original language, I'll never really know what it's saying.;) It certainly looks like that may be the case, here.
 
Ermintrude said:
Is there not an implication that they had difficulty in recognising him as The Messiah, the arisin one?

Perhaps he appeared groggy, from the effects of death-wine/mandragora....http://www.mandrakeconnection.com...and the futureshock backwash from all that upcoming expectation
Click to expand...
That is a fascinating idea. Especially the involvement of Lazarus. He must have been a brave man indeed.
 
And so I'm back to Theology. Last term the wrong room number was given for the lectures, turned out to be a janitor's closet. This term they just got the floor wrong. Hamilton building offering specials in the canteen: Chicken nuggets & chips or potatoes; Sausages, beans & chips. FFS!

Prophets, Seers & Sages. But lecturer didn't think up title so there will be little on Sages. May get a chance to raise Jesus as a Timelord at one of the Seminars. But hopefully will get to discuss Recognition of Risen Jesus at some stage.

Had a chat with lecturer afterwards, he wasn't aware of Forteanism but seemed interested. Must dig out an appropriate copy of FT for him.

European History beckons at 4 pm.
 
My Unitarian minister said that it was, obviously enough, because it wasn't him... but then they started to "recognise him" (i.e. similarities in character) in other people. I like that.
 
Got this response from Rev. Bosco Peters:
  1. Rev. Bosco Peters ‏@Liturgy 1h1 hour ago
    It's not "revealed in the Bible" - read more: http://liturgy.co.nz/revealed-in-the-bible…
Rev. Bosco Peters ‏@Liturgy 42m42 minutes ago
@rmltpie must be a wonderful discussion. Is important in discussions about hallucination - this wasn't such. ...

Rev. Bosco Peters ‏@Liturgy 43m43 minutes ago
@rmltpie He was resurrected - not resuscitated. ie transformed. Blessings.
 
Way back, when I was a Childhood Compulsory Christian, I realised early that there was something not entirely believable about the life-after-death Unique Selling Point of my inflicted religion.

That there was an unholy trinity of afterlife versions on the go.

The first, Disneyland version was (and maybe still is) that everyone, and everything, died sweetly, and went to heaven. Immediately. Grandparents, goldfish, cancer people. Hell was disestablished, everyone got the upgrade to Business Class the instant they "passed away". I thought of this as New Testament Heaven, and in the 1960s I maybe was right.

The second Old Testament kind of afterlife was very dark and scary. Everyone got buried until the end of time, stayed freeze-frame forever, and then the bestest ones were allowed into heaven, with the worstest ones sent straight to hell.

The third, to me most mysterious form of life-after-death was the witnessed resurrection of Jesus. Because even as a very young kid I realised that his resurrection was what all the heaven/afterlife promises were hung upon....despite his life-after-death resurrection being precisely (irrespective of what the good Rev Bosco Peters decrees) is what he says it wasn't...that is, a resuscitation. Undoubtedly. Whether physical or supernatural powers were invoked, Jesus is physically back alive at that point. Not in a vague wooly sky-ghost omnipresent Santa way, but in an actutal son of Joseph non-heavenly mortal-zombie way.

Ministers of religion hated me asking about this, so I learned to shut-up like all the other victims of one of the world's most-successful marketing and sales schemes.

Roll up, roll up, buy our product. You can't see it, and of course you never will. It will keep you safe from harm at times except ever. Faith is vitally-important...because without it, you are nothing. Oh, and there are close to 5,000 very-similar products available. All 4,999 of them are wrong, but by the grace of God, you've chosen to follow the right path. And please remember to put your money on the plate...these priests/ministers/monks/nuns have got to be fed/housed and given Ford motor cars, don't you know? But they will pray for your mortal soul, definiteĺy. In fact, probably after lunch. If you're good. Now get back down the pit, and keep digging for salvation....
 
Last edited:
I'd forgotten until the last week or so that from an early age, I refused to pray or sing hymns or the national anthem. The schools didn't know what to do with me!
 
Ok. I have to lead a seminar on the following:

Worship only one God?


Answer the following questions with reference to the readings indicated below and any biblical passages they discuss:

1. What is the evidence for the monotheistic character of Isaiah 40-55?

2. What evidence may be mustered from these chapters to suggest otherwise?

3. Which position do you favour and why?
 
escargot1 said:
I'd forgotten until the last week or so that from an early age, I refused to pray or sing hymns or the national anthem. The schools didn't know what to do with me!
Click to expand...

You....veritable Corbin-child, you! (that, in my head, becomes 'Crow Kid'.......what was your childhood position on independant nuclear deterrance? Apologies to those unsighted on UK Labour party leadership soap operatics)


1. What is the evidence for the monotheistic character of Isaiah 40-55?

Evidence? Real evidence...wow, that's a cracker. Oh, they just mean statements in support thereof?? http://mit.irr.org/28-biblical-passages-which-explicitly-teach-there-only-one-god .......masses of monotonous Mormon monotheology

2. What evidence may be mustered from these chapters to suggest otherwise?

http://www.amazon.com/The-TRINITY-Dr-Robert-Morey/dp/1498435432
The royal "we", "us", "our", in a first-persons (plural, not possessive) non-regal sense.

Father, sun and holy ghost. Dad, lad and altogether sad.

3. Which position do you favour and why?

Lotus. Sorry.

Well, clearly we must maintain cryptic irreduceable complexity, here. So, that's the bored game of monopolytheism being extolled. All the vastness, cat-may-look-at-a-king, intracranial split-brain multiple-impersonality dialogue stuff, projected on to a blank canvas.
 
graylien said:
Perhaps the not recognising bit was put in to indicate that Jesus was now transfigured in some way? If he looked exactly the same as when alive, then perhaps a cynic might claim that he obviously never died in the first place.What exactly is Jesus supposed to be post Resurrection, anyway? Is he still part human, part God, or is he now all God?
Click to expand...

Zombie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top