The road to Emmaus

Something I shared in another context after I had engaged in some online conversation with a group of individuals discussing the Bible from a scholarly perspective:

…The academic, scholarly community is not for the faint of heart, particularly when we’re talking about religion. The fundamental problem with such discussions is that there are two premises, a world apart, upon which these things are being argued. And I made the mistake of coming into the discussion from a believing perspective.

The discussion as a whole is about contradictions in the gospels. From a non-believing perspective, I’m not sure why it’s even being discussed. If it’s mythology, then why waste time on it. I suppose it could be seen as a service, bringing into the light of rational thought these poor believers who have been duped. I can see the rationale there.

Anyway, here’s my (believer-perspective) response to someone who said the two disciples on the road to Emmaus could not have recognized the significance of Jesus breaking and blessing bread with them, because they had not been at the last supper:

“Did they have to have been present at the last supper to recognize unique significance in the practice of breaking and blessing bread? Jesus as the bread of life was a theme of his ministry. Twice, he miraculously multiplied bread to feed a multitude. He publicly referred to himself as the bread of life and insisted that people must partake of his flesh, meaning consume it symbolically, which conveyed the idea in John 14 of the father and son coming to us and making their abode with us. Miraculously providing bread/manna was ingrained in the Jewish tradition because of the manna provided miraculously to the children of Israel in the wilderness.

“It specifically says in the account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus that their eyes were ‘holden’ that they didn’t recognize Jesus. There was something else at play than just the normal physical senses that, in the first place (when they walked with Jesus) caused them not to recognize him, and in the second place (when they realized who he was) to realize that this was the very Jesus of Nazareth who had died on the cross. At that point, their hearts burned within them with the dawning comprehension of who it was.

“At that point, then, everything they had just heard during the several hours on the road, tied together and made sense. Jesus had expounded all things from the beginning concerning himself, likely expounding on the many old testament prophecies and references that pointed to a promised Messiah, a final sacrifice of a lamb without blemish that would fulfill the ends of the law of Moses. This all rolled together at once and the two disciples realized what it all meant.

“As for his disappearing act, who knows what the literal, intended meaning was for such a description of the event. From a non-believing perspective, it seems ridiculous and the conversation is over. But, from a believing perspective, what’s so different between Jesus departing in a way that’s so sudden it seems miraculous, and Jesus somehow appearing to the 11 disciples inside a locked room after his resurrection? The entire premise of the bible is the reality of the miraculous. If we allow that premise to inform our reading of the bible, things make more sense and many (not all) apparent contradictions disappear. But, if all of us here in this discussion are coming at this from a non-believing perspective, then yes, it’s all utterly ridiculous, there are indeed a multitude of contradictions, and frankly the conversation is over and I wonder why we’re all here.“