Resurrection

How is one supposed to sincerely believe in this?

From what I understand it's to be taken completely literally.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Lance)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

do you know what scene that painting is of?

it's the first time that Christ revealed himself after the resurrection to Paul/Peter/Thomas i think, not familiar with the artist/painting.

It's a picture of Jesus showing going alive after his resurrection of the dead with Thomas putting his finger into the wound in the side of Jesus. Jesus told Thomas to do it in John 20:27]] KJV* Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
But it doesn't say Thomas actually did thrust his hand into his side, and I don't think he did.

You can begin to believe it once you accept that God exists, and that Christ is his son. It's purely predicted upon God.

the bible writers forgot the prologue telling the readers not to take it literally.
otherwise one has to believe jesus ascended upwards to heaven literally. as in the clouds. or maybe he is still ascending 2017 light years away.
ridiculous.

It wasn't the first time. Thomas was not present a time prior to this scene and didn't believe that the others who claimed to have seen him were telling the truth.

Because he was Son of God so of course he resurected and defeated the death.
You don't become the most famous person of all time by being regular average human.

You know Jesus is God, right? Why is this so hard to believe. Is anything too hard for God?

>Thomas missionary to India
what went wrong?

Where does the bible say that Thomas was a missionary to India?

Thomas said "i wont believe that man is Christ until i put my finger inside the wound" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Lance)

Then Thomas found Jesus and Jesus had him put the finger in the wound and he said "My Lord!" and kneeled infront of him, and Jesus said:

"You now believe cause you have SEEN, blessed those who believe without seeing"

The point of the fable is that there are ways to empirically prove that God exists, but its a rather inconvenient path cause it involves you having some sort of "gnostic" revelation that involves you physically experiencing Christ's pain and feeling the deepest sense of shame a man can feel

Is that a legit question? I'm guessing you aren't a believer.

It's up to you. People are born in this world to die. They live with the constant fear of death. Jesus repeatedly told the apostles not to worry and fear.

>blessed those who believe without seeing
What's so great about this philosophy? I believe in Kek because I have seen signs and wonders.

i don't think its supposed to mean "don't doubt authority", i think its just a statement of how painful and lonely the path to finding the truth by your own actually is

you know, redpills hurt

christianity is all about breaking bread and sharing wine with your mates and family

>caravaggio

manigga

doubting thomas.

you faggots wanna make this an art thread?

once again, that PhD art history faggot at a western university, still in leaf land for holiday. AMA.

>inb4 shit choice

too many commies and marxists are teaching young minds to hate western art and by extension a basis for our collective identity and heritage

faith.

t. ithappened repent

this guy gets it.

This narrative echoes an earlier story of the sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham. It is the one most heinous according to many critics, including lesser Hitchens.

The insinuation is that faith, especially faith in the face of adversity and challenges, is better than needing evidence. Hence, doubting Thomas, the skeptic and rational individual post-crucifixion, is lamented by theologians for ever doubting christ. The lesson to be learned is that to doubt one's faith is to be unfaithful and thus bad.

Even though he was really doubting hysterical women who had just lost a close friend three days prior who came in ranting and raving about resurrected Christ.

bronze panel related.

>fable

already revealed yourself to be an imbecile.

>once again, that PhD art history faggot at a western university, still in leaf land for holiday. AMA.

I am looking for art, specially statues, of qts representing virtues, until now i have the ones in pic related, the first two are statues in different european cemeteries, couldn't find the authors of any of them, only tumblr posts by the photographers that lead me to at least knowing where the fuck they are at; third one is Fortitude by Boticceli

Could you guide me to more stuff like this?

>redpills hurt
>still believes in magical sky wizard
topcuck

...

>This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
>Matthew 13:13

>sartre
>redpill
gtfo

People went to their death proclaiming they had seen the risen Christ first-hand. That he had eaten with them. That he had materialised through objects, even.

Not just "I think he rose again".

>How?
It's a miracle. It's precisely because it doesn't happen that gave them reason to accept that he just didn't swoon (impossible anyway; you think a soldier would risk dying by letting some suspected terrorist live? Get real).

Even some of his followers couldn't believe it.
And then hey encountered him risen.

>I believe in Kek because I have seen signs and wonders.
>wonders
Please the modern wonders wrought by God pale in comparison to the forced creation of a meme.

>its representing virtues

aka women who are exalting righteous virtues and are being celebrated?

Most of the art pre-19th c is religious in nature in some form or another, save the commercial shit in the Netherlandish areas post 1550s.

You definitely want to look up subjects about Theresa, Anne, and Mary Magdalene. The ecstasy of saint teresa by bernini, for instance.

I'd need to know more what you're talking about, though. If you're referring to aesthetically pleasing women, then that's a more difficult find b/c there's so much white noise you have to sift through.

Madonna del Prato by Raphael at the Kunsthistorisches I feel is especially lovely in person. pic related.

It's difficult to find what you're looking for, considering most statues are either secular busts or saintly women of veneration whom you're not "supposed" to lust after, e.g. Mary.

Elaine Pagels made an interesting speculation about this.

In the early church, there was a power struggle for orthodoxy between a number of different groups, the most well-known being what became the orthodox church (that became the religion of the Roman empire) and the various Gnostic sects.

Originally, it's possible that the Apostles may have seen Jesus in a vision (or the perception may have been that they did), but because people like the Gnostics had visions as a key part of their tradition, the problem arose of 'are their visions authoritative in terms of doctrine'

So through some kind of logical gymnastics, the belief arose that when the apostles saw Jesus, they saw him in the FLESH, not in a vision, meaning their experience was superior to that of any vision, so it was more authoritative

What's more, as the orthodox church claimed legitimacy from Peter, and he was present at this superior incident, meaning he had more authority than any gnostic teachers such as Valentinus, hence the orthodox church could claim legitimacy.

It's a speculative argument, but pretty interesting

Acts of the Apostles

Also founded the St. Thomas Christians who exist to this day, albeit in a slightly different form after the Portuguese took a giant shit on them

Resurrection in flesh is pagan bullshit, perpetuated by judeo-"christians".
Don't fall for this shit.

>visions
>Thomas put his finger in christs wounds
swing and a miss

this is a great synthesis of that conceptual struggle, Seamus.

It's amazing what the yankee protestants make of this arguement. There's a documentary about it I believe, or it is a part of the theological mismatch of american protestantism not even being remotely similar between churches of the same 'sect'.

>If you're referring to aesthetically pleasing women
kind of this but with religious/spiritual deep undertones of some kind, first one is not even christian, its athena

>It's difficult to find what you're looking for, considering most statues are either secular busts or saintly women of veneration whom you're not "supposed" to lust after, e.g. Mary.
Not lustful women, i find some kind of "4th-stage-anima" in the ones i posted, like beauty well beyond lust, platonic eros or whatever is called, i could look at them for eternity, pic related is almost there too

>ecstasy of saint teresa
no, this is too much, looks like she is having an orgasm/agony

thanks man, will looking right now for the ones you said

>thinking a parable needs to have literally happened

like the existence of socrates, it doesn't matter if it did or did not happen. the fact that it was written about, and what the parable is conveying, is what truly matters.

Also to my memory John 20 doesn't say anything about thomas actually doing it; he SEES christ, is amazed, and has christ tell him to now believe b/c he has seen.

And what's the original source for that? Bearing in mind this was oral tradition, and it only exists in John, which was very nearly not included in the canon due to doubts about doctrinal accuracy. For such a significant validation of the 'in the flesh' doctrine, it doesn't appear in the synoptic gospels at all iirc

Did one of the people in the room tell this to the evangelist, given that John is dated at 90AD at the earliest, and these events happened 60 years prior to that (or possibly more than that depending on how accurate you believe the dating of the events is)

It could easily have crept in in the intervening 60 years, given the variety of groups and doctrines at the time.

Again, this is all speculative, just an interesting thought

>t. Orlov, certified orthodox-jew

The early church fathers harkened back to what St Paul said about the followers of Christ being the literal body of Christ. They said that as Christians become martyrs they too will be reasurected like Christ, and end of converting their enemies via glorification of the body of Christ. This happened to Rome, and this also happened in Russia. How is it that Rome killed all those Christians and after became Christian? How do the atheistic Soviet Union slaughter sixty million Orthodox Christians, last century, and is now the most Christianized country in the world?

Because we are the body of Christ, and as we get crucified, we also get resurrection. You are neing reminded at all times it is true.

Once Sup Forums reaches its full potential, it will come to accept this truth, and be recieved into the glorification that the greatest saints also are a part of.

What? I don't even know who that is.
Also, I'm not orthodox and prefer to stay away from codified Abrahamic cults altogether.
As should any sane person.

lol@Abrahamic religion. Don't you realize we hellenized that shit?

>one-post
>writing prompt
>i want to babble about theology but not actually pick up a book and learn anything

At least it's a chance.

Profound analysis of the mystical body of Christ

Pro-tip: keep it simple. Jesus used every-day language and parables to explain the mysteries of the Kingdom of God

Ideas/books for teaching art history to young kids?