Debating the Resurrection

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

Thank you for expounding the traditional view for us!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Traditionally the Resurrection signifies a corporate and communal event, not an individualistic one ... and Christian doctrine is corporate and communal, not individualistic ... which is why the ekklesia is central to the doctrine — without it the Mystical body exists only in a abstract and speculative sense — it is a physical representation of the Mystical Body in the created order, it represents a reality in a way no individual can accomplish.

I don't disagree, but resurrection is often viewed from a singular and personal perspective. Afterall, that is the level which holds any meaning that we can directly relate to.

There are other considerations too, interpretational issues, such as the thief who repented on the cross beside Jesus, to whom was promised "today you will be with me in paradise." This to me resonates on an individual level, not a corporate one. This is not to say you are incorrect, for surely the promise of Isaiah does according to at least one interpretation allow for a corporate resurrection. I sense both are accurate.

Originally Posted by Thomas

This is what the Roman Church and the Orthodox Patriachates teach, so if you wanna know the real deal, you know where to look ...

Indeed, I do. Judaism. Afterall, what books did Jesus learn and teach from?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Easy. Go back to the source, and then look at the motivation behind later denominations diverging from the path.

Ah, what truth your words contain! Look at how politics changed the radical Judaism which comprised early Christianity! A mere look at the history of Rome of the first few centuries of the Common Era shed a great deal of light in this regard.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The point is, they were giants, and cos we can't attain even the 'old order', we cry 'sour grapes' and invent 'new orders' (or new denominations, indeed) tailored to our shortcomings ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

As the says, many of the modern versions of Christianity teach according to their own agenda, which bears scant relation to what was originally taught.

True. Catholism is not immune to this either, indeed, has been the teacher to others of how to "modify" its presence to suit the locals at the street level. Two extreme examples leap readily to mind: Haitian Catholism interlaced inextricably with Voodun, and the amalgam in the American Southwest among the Hispanic Mexican population which includes the veneration of the Virgin of Guadelupe. Other examples are easy enough to find.

Originally Posted by Thomas

There's a difference between the secular and the sacred sciences, isn't there ...

Indeed there is. Let us not confuse politics with metaphysics though, if we are to be most honest with ourselves.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Christianity is founded in the Eternal Truth of the Absolute, and manifest in and made known through a metaphysic of the person ... and provides the means by which one might transcend self ... your 'truth' is founded on the empirical and the contingent, and as such is locked in upon itself as its own paradigm ... until nature comes knocking on the door ...

Agreed. However, am I to presume an institution holds these eternal and absolute truths simply because it says so? What distinction can I as an interested observer make between this as a claim of Catholism versus this same claim from...oh, let's say...Theosophy? Actually, what is it that distinguishes any other faith walk that might make the same claim? That Catholism *actually is* the real deal and all others are fakes?

Can you begin to see why such claims can be viewed as suspect?

Originally Posted by Thomas

The biggest mistake we make is in assuming we are somehow better than our forebears ... we might have learnt to hide our faeces and dazzle ourselves with the glamour of our technologies ... but we're deeper in the doo-dooh now than we've ever been.

I'm not certain it is the biggest mistake we collectively make, but I agree it is a big mistake. We do tend to get rather swelled noggins with the more secular knowledge we gain. I suspect we all from time to time forget to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and that science and religion are really apples and oranges.

Still, what are we to do when we are told "such and such" is true? What then is truth, if it is not actually true? Granted, science is not necessarily truth any more than some religious explanations can be...we must make some rational sense of our world somehow. How are we to reconcile *the four corners of the earth* when we know at all levels that the earth is round? Simply (and blindly) accept without question? Because our institution tells us we must?

Certainly the Bible was written to an earlier mind, and is not intended as a science text. I accept that. I accept that the truths contained are figurative and symbolic, and may or may not translate directly into modern reason. That does not diminish the value of the Sacred text. It does diminish the value of the institution that continues to exert political authority as it tries in vain to maintain a tenuous position that is quite evidently not the truth of reality, history or experience.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I'm honestly not sure whether this planet will sustain my children, now in their 20s, into their old age we have led them to expect, and which we assumed as a right. (By which I mean the affluent West, of course — the 'third world' as we call it has been footing the bill for our creature comforts for a number of years now ... )

These are valid concerns we all face. I lost a great deal of my early adult life consumed in worry over this very thing. I sincerely thought the end of this era would have come about by now. I am not certain where I first got the idea in my head, but I know that my reading of the Bible only fuelled the fire of worrying about the end. I have been watching diligently, but I have also grown a bit more relaxed with age in my diligence, perhaps to my detriment. Living in a contant state of worry is no way to live either. I see how things are unfolding, there are prophecies in various states of fulfillment. Perhaps it may yet happen in my lifetime.

Then again, maybe not. All those plans I made as a young man have come essentially to nought, instead I forgot to live my life and cherish what time I have been given. I've shifted my focus a bit now. I don't worry so much anymore. I am more grateful for what G-d has provided in all respects, including time. My physical health has deteriorated to the point that the *rabbit run* I so carefully planned is no longer an option. Now I trust in faith that I will guard myself and mine as well as I can, and trust to the Father to provide His protection when the time comes.

Some questions truly aren't worth the stress in worrying over the semantics and interpretations. Is resurrection physical, spiritual or both? I don't know. To me, it is a non-issue, so long as I am there when it occurs, and I get to stand with the "good and faithful servants." That is where my focus is. The rest is just mental exercise to help keep my brain alive.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The biggest mistake we make is in assuming we are somehow better than our forebears ... we might have learnt to hide our faeces and dazzle ourselves with the glamour of our technologies ... but we're deeper in the doo-dooh now than we've ever been.

Ah! An essential point of difference. I suppose the fact that I utterly reject this is what makes me a progressive.

I'm not sure I understand what the debate over the resurrection is about. It would seem that issues of corporeality versus some sort of enhanced corporeality are mostly part of the minutiae of the mystery and not much subject to debate of any rigor within Christianity proper. That's my observation, anyhow. If the Tomb was empty, and Thomas was later able to touch the crucifixion wounds, doesn't that imply some sort of physicality to the process? I mean, staying within the story, of course.

Chris

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

I'm not sure I understand what the debate over the resurrection is about.

That would be my boo boo. Debating the Resurrection was the title of the article. I meant to include that in the name of the thread but I forgot. Silly me, I'm still not perfect.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It would seem that issues of corporeality versus some sort of enhanced corporeality are mostly part of the minutiae of the mystery and not much subject to debate of any rigor within Christianity proper. That's my observation, anyhow. If the Tomb was empty, and Thomas was later able to touch the crucifixion wounds, doesn't that imply some sort of physicality to the process? I mean, staying within the story, of course.

The whole "mystery" bit just doesn't sit well in my craw. Why does G-d hafta hide anything? Why would G-d hide anything?

Something tells me that the whole "mystery" shebang is a lame excuse to not have to be accountable to the really tough questions. Ask a tough question, and the answer is always "Oh, that's a mystery. Take it on faith that it is the way it is," effectively because we said so.

If G-d is real (which is to me a rhetorical question), then He can handle being questioned. I even dare to believe He likes to answer our questions...if they are asked properly and sincerely.

But what do I know?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

To translate your quote into more accessible language, then, you are saying that Christ's resurrected body included a sort of personal Tardis*. Well, that finesses its way round the contradictions at least.

My post was an excerpt for contemplation ... it points to many interesting points, and addresses the issues raised by the Scriptural account of the Resurrection.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Personally I don't find the idea of my body being sucked into the universe by an unstoppable transcendence appealing.

If you're not a Christian, I can see how the technical language employed might be somewhat offputting. If you want more paranetic texts, there are plenty to choose from — John's testimony of the Last Supper ... and St Paul is brilliant at it ... I didn't think an homiletic style would be appreciated here at CR.

But if people want to debate the Resurrection of Christ, at least bother to re-read the source material ... my posts are metaphysical speculations, not homilies nor are they proselytising ... that is not what CR is about.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

This undermines the foundations of their faith, which should be built on love, not self-interest.

Nowhere do I suggest self-interest. It's love or nothing ... and unconditional love or nothing ... His words, not mine.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Christ offered nothing but a hard road.

But He also offered the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Comforter, and that is a reality, and that makes the hard road not only bearable, but infinitely more rewarding than anything the world has to offer.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Maybe that was not enough to win people over, so a sweetener was added to the doctrine. Is this not so?

Why not ask yourself what you expect my answer to be.

And please refrain from such offensive comments with regard Christianity and the faith of Christians. You might find such things contemptible, I stand in awe of both.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Just noticed this:

Resurrection is reality, Pope assures audience

Vatican, Mar. 26, 2008
The Easter Octave draws attention to "the central truth of Christian faith in all its doctrinal richness"

The Resurrection of Jesus brings to believers "the certainty of our final resurrection," the Holy Father said. He pointedly remarked that the historical truth of the Resurrection "is amply documented, even if today, as in the past, there is no lack of people who put it in doubt or even deny it." In fact, the Pontiff continued, "the weakening of faith in the Resurrection of Jesus leads to the weakening of the testimony of believers."

The liturgy of the Easter season underlines the Church's full confidence in the reality of the Resurrection, the Pope said, encouraging Catholics to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations. Just as the disciples recognized Christ on the road to Emmaus, the Pope said that the faithful "can meet and know Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist."

It may be of interest to know that the traditional exegesis of the Emmaus meeting (Luke 24:13_53) has two disciples, one named Cleophas, the other is anonymous, and is you ... in turn the risen Christ is unrecognised by those who know Him, until they partook of the Eucharist, at which point their eyes were opened ... a Mystery ... yesterday, today, and tomorrow...

If one finds the Mysteries of the Christian Faith difficult, an abstraction ... then please understand that, for the faithful Christian who engages in a real way with The Lord, then there is a knowing more profound than any explanation might put into words ...

Thomas

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Thomas

My post was an excerpt for contemplation ... it points to many interesting points, and addresses the issues raised by the Scriptural account of the Resurrection.

The article said that Christ could materialise and dematerialise at will. In this respect he was Tardis-like. That is what it said.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I didn't think an homiletic style would be appreciated here at CR.

I think the problem comes when style overtakes substance.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Nowhere do I suggest self-interest. It's love or nothing ... and unconditional love or nothing ... His words, not mine.

Yes I agree. But you haven't answered my central point. You can't act selflessly and be rewarded too. It's impossible.

Originally Posted by Thomas

But He also offered the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Comforter, and that is a reality, and that makes the hard road not only bearable, but infinitely more rewarding than anything the world has to offer.

That I can agree with 200 per cent.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Why not ask yourself what you expect my answer to be.

I thought you might be interested in explainig the discrepanct between Christ's teaching and this doctrine, that's all.

Originally Posted by Thomas

And please refrain from such offensive comments with regard Christianity and the faith of Christians. You might find such things contemptible, I stand in awe of both.
Thomas

Where is the offence? I went out of my way to pay you a heartfelt compliment and you accuse me of offending you? Sometimes you just can't win.

Finally then, brother, tell me this: what happened to Christ's physical body at the ascension?

With respect,
Cliff

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

The article said that Christ could materialise and dematerialise at will. In this respect he was Tardis-like. That is what it said.

OK. If you think the authors of Scripture had the Tardis in mind. I think they might be a bit more far-sighted than that ...

To my mind the Borella introduces a profoundly metaphysical insight that is entirely consonant with Scripture, but it's not for everyone.

I have said nothing that is not entirely in accord with Scripture, although I have been careful to say these are my own speculations. If they are too testing, I shall keep them to myself in future.

Originally Posted by Virtual_Cliff

Finally then, brother, tell me this: what happened to Christ's physical body at the ascension?

Luke 24:31:
"And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he vanished out of their sight."
St John is quite clear that the Word became flesh so that men might understand; once their 'eyes were opened' they 'saw' Him under no limitation, so He 'ascended' materially, metaphysically and ontologically, to the Father.

Thomas

[Thomas]

It may come a some surprise to know that the Resurrection has never been defined as a Dogma of Faith in the Catholic Church, for the simple reason that it has never been deemed to be necessary — it's what every true Christian believes — and without it, Christ means nothing:

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:13–14).

Thomas

[_Z_]

is this debating the resurrection? ~ or are we just here to listen to some vague ideas, then when we show fault or disagree we are told it is christian theology. it seams [as usual i am afraid to say] that we are simply to be told the truth and not debate it.

this thread should be in the christian section not out here asking for general debate imho.

sorry but that is how it comes across, there are areas that may be debated but it seams thay are only allowed to be looked at in one way.

its a shame christianity can show us so much, but not i feel like this.

[arthra]

Well I wonder whether "debating" the resurrection is really what I'd like to do here..

My modem went out several days ago and only recently have I been able to restore my service therwise I probably would have poisted earlier.

But I thought I'd maybe state my own beliefs on the resurrection as a Baha'i.

We Baha'is believe Jesus was crucified, executed and that He died or was martyred. Where we differ with most traditional Christians is that we believe in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, that is His Cause was "resurrected" in the hearts of His followers. Some where it says that the body of Christ is the church..

"The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12).

so in this sense we would say the Cause of Christ was eclipsed for a few days and then reborn or resurrected in the hearts of His followers. See the following from Abdul-Baha on the meaning of the Resurrection:

"His (Jesus') resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical... ...Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection
is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. ...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ...the Reality of Christ became resplendent ...; His religion found life... ...Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols..."


I personally accept that Jesus followers may well have had visionary experiences where they really experienced the presence of Jesus after His crucifixion just as they did for instance on the Mount of Transfiguration when Jesus was alive. See

Jesus was transfigured upon a mountain (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36).

but these were spiritual experiences they had and not that the body of Jesus was physically resurrected. These visionary experiences would have been very real to them I believe.

Anyway that about sums up what I believe on the subject.

- Art

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by _Z_

is this debating the resurrection?

That's a good question.

The debate boils down to this:
Q: What evidence is there for the Resurrection?
A: The testimony of Scripture, and the traditions of the early Church.

That is the foundation of my debate, and that is 'first' foundation of any debate, isn't it? I debate from the standpoint of the truth of scripture.

And really the question is, do you believe it, or do you not? Quite simple.

The Resurrection has always been a no-brainer for orthodox Christianity. So again, either accept it, or don't ... but you can't call yourself Christian, and qualify it according to what seems reasonable to you. Not unless you're seeking to reinvent Christianity in your own image.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi arthra —

Originally Posted by arthra

We Baha'is believe Jesus was crucified, executed and that He died or was martyred. Where we differ with most traditional Christians is that we believe in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, that is His Cause was "resurrected" in the hearts of His followers. Some where it says that the body of Christ is the church..

That in fact is not an uncommon view, indeed it was prevalent in the earliest days, and recurs in many guises — for Christians it's fundamentally a form of dualism that sees a radical split between spirit and matter — notably the gnostics of the 2nd century tried to rework Christianity to suit their own dualistic theogonies, and various philosophies down through the ages have sought to separate and divide the unity of body and soul.

Christianity is not dualist, it follows its Hebraic root as a holistic teaching in which 'man' is a deiform and in Christian terms a tripartite being of spirit, soul and body the imago Dei — and in Christian philosophy a human is potentially higher than the angels, for whereas angels are beings of pure spirit and intellect, we are spirit and flesh in union.

The Gospel of St. John was written for the very purpose of refuting such ideas (as does St. Paul, eg 1 Corinthians, quoted above), and one of the accusations against Jesus at his trial was his claim to 'rebuild the temple'.

The First Epistle of John follows the Gospel in seeking to address and resolve a schism that threatened the Johannine community at Ephesus, in which the seccessionists preached a doctrine similar, it would seem, to the Baha'i doctrine.

Thomas

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by _Z_

is this debating the resurrection? ~
its a shame christianity can show us so much, but not i feel like this.

I don't want to push this too far if it offends Thomas. For myself, I started as a perfectly normal C of E Christian. Over the last ten years or so I have been asking questions and seeking to clarify and expand my understanding, not only within Christian circles but also beyond.

I have a number of difficulties with the physical resurrection story that I think need to be addressed. And being threatened with a sort of internet excommunication for asking questions frankly doesn't help at all.

Why did Christ say to Mary, "Don't touch me" and yet to the disciple Thomas "Put your hands in my wounds"? Why did Christ only give a few sketchy and dismissive replies to questions on the afterlife, but St Paul sees it as pivotal to the faith? Why did his resurrected body differ from his previous body, if it was the same body that had lain in the tomb? Can we be promised a reward in Heaven and still act selflessly?

So far I have not had any answers to these questions. I find the Baha'i approach entirely reasonable. Perhaps this is part of the answer. I should be interested to hear other points of view.

[arthra]

Thomas wrote:

That in fact is not an uncommon view, indeed it was prevalent in the earliest days, and recurs in many guises — for Christians it's fundamentally a form of dualism that sees a radical split between spirit and matter

My comment:

Thanks for your post Thomas! If it was prevalent from the earliest days of Christianity and not uncommon then it must have been perhaps the accepted then? And how did it become "uncommon" and repudiated?

Also I'm not sure though that it is properly dualism as that is usually associated say with divinities .. more than one God. I don't think believing that the soul is not totally identified with the body is "dualist", this is a dichotomy you have chosen.

Does not the scripture itself asset:

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15)

And Paul the Apostle didn't encounter Jesus on the way to Damascus in a physical form as it was after the ascension...

See this is a problem ...

I agree with you Thomas the early church came to enforce a belief that Jesus was physically resurrected ... His body ascended after forty days and sits on the right hand of the Father as the creed says, but it was not always so, that is in the sense of a widely held belief from the "earliest days" of Christianity.

- Art

[_Z_]

thomas

The Resurrection has always been a no-brainer for orthodox Christianity. So again, either accept it, or don’t ... but you can’t call yourself Christian, and qualify it according to what seems reasonable to you. Not unless you’re seeking to reinvent Christianity in your own image.

...or see him more clearly

i am not a christian although i am open to it, i am infact a druid, but if i thought the resurrection was right, over say reincarnation [which we generally believe in], then i would discuss it and help let others around me know about it. there are many christian druids but most don’t believe in the resurrection.
in short the notion of the resurrection could be a valid aspect of consideration in debates along with rebirth etc. for that to happen one must extrapolate it and give it some philosophical validity beyond just saying it is true.

i do feel that christianity would eventually fall by the wayside if no attempt is made at qualifying its beliefs, and that would be a shame.

virtual cliff

one thing i wonder about is that christ was kinda resurrected twice, in that he was brought back to life [or brought himself back] and then ascended to heaven. does this not suggest that this is where the resurrection goes?

from what i know of the spiritual realm we don’t feel any different and the dwellers therin don’t feel different. what is it that feels when you touch someone ~ as i see it, it is not the physical form but the spirit that touches! the nervous system is there to give info about our environment, but it is souls that touch, electro-magnetism is simply the medium for that touch in this world.

what i am getting at then is; the resurrected soul is the complete self! without the physical world we don’t need its glove between the souls hand and its earth! [a profound meaning in there somewhere ].

so does it not make much more sense to have a spiritual resurrection?

----------------

i would then go on to say that all would be resurrected! if the devil himself was hanging off a cliff by one arm do you think god would not clasp his hand and bring him to safety? do we think god would not provide a heaven for all one that is not limiting but the exact opposite, where the soul is as free as the wind.

sorry am i being a hippy again.