Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?

[Dondi]

Hi InLove,

No, actually, I wasn't even directing my comments in response to your post at all. In fact, they weren't even directed at anyone in particular. These are simply my own reflective ramblings. I'm sorry if you mistook it the wrong way. (In all honesty, I didn't read your post before I wrote this).

But now that I have read your post, InLove, I appreciate that you are similarly open about the matter as I am. I think there is room for the miraculous to have a scientific explanation to it, even if we don't understand what exactly that is.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Dondi, in response to your post, I think an important question is, what do we mean by `Resurrection?' And more specifically, "from the dead."

I would repost your entire post, taij, for you hit on some important points and in a rare moment, I can agree with most of what you have said . But I agree wholeheartedly that our resurrection encompasses not only body, but soul and spirit as well. And that distinction ought not to be overlooked, for old wine doesn't get poured into new wineskins .

I would further offer that this resurrection will not be a mere reanimation of our decayed bodies ala Frankenstein's monster, for the resurrection accounts of Jesus in the Gospels suggests a marked improvement of the physical container in which we will house. If we believe that Lazarus was resurrected after four days rot, we can only venture that he died for good at a later time in the same flesh and blood body that he possessed prior to being inflicted with the fatal illness. Jesus even proclaimed that "flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God". So something more spectacular that we could imagine is the hope we hold now, yet it is still a body of some kind, for Jesus ate fish and honeycomb and retained the wounds of His hands and feet. Very curious.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm kinda scratching my head as I read these posts. I'm trying to see some kind of reconciliation with a belief in Liberal Christianity without a Resurrection.

Now I understand the point of looking to Christ as a symbol for the "Ideal". If one would apply the teachings of Jesus to one's life, I believe that they will find an abundant and fulfilling life. further, I think Jesus' teaching parallel many of the other world's religions in that regard. We search for the kind of life that is rewarding and benefitial for others as well as ourselves. We hope that there may come a time when all the peoples of the world could come together in peace and harmony.

This is the wish of many people. Some people see fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity as the Number 1 reason it is not happening. Both feel it is their sacred responsibility to get rid of dissenters to their faith. If both stick to their guns to the death then there will be MUCH more blood shed before peace can occur.

But if we only regard Jesus as a mythical, then the process of belief becomes complicated, for I find it difficult to separate the teachings of Jesus from the man of Jesus.

I guess you're just very different from me.

If there is no example for these teachings to embody, then it becomes a moot point, doesn't it? However you think of Christ, whether he is God in the flesh, a great rabbi, an ascended master, or even a mythical figure, if these teachings are to have any value, then they ought to have been experienced by that "Ideal" in a real way.

Sorry to disappoint you, Dondi, but Jesus said very little that is original. Read Plato, Aristotle, and all the other philosophers before and during the time of Jesus. Socrates is reported by Plato to have said things that Jesus said (according to the NT account) six centuries later.

I personally don't understand why we need a man Jesus in order to accept, understand, and find meaning in truthful sayings.

And if you suppose that Jesus was a real person, one cannot escape much of what the NT speaks of in regard to the resurrection. The Apostle Paul made that adamantly clear in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

You're taking all your evidence from the Bible. Even for secular court, one person's word is not accepted to establish truth. How much more when it comes to something as serious as one's eternal salvation should we seek evidence from more than one source.

How can one in Liberal Christianity not take the seriousness the matter of the resurrection? What hope have we if there is no resurrection? We might as well pack Christianity in altogether for if there is nothing beyond this life, then what's the point?

Why is the resurrection seriously important? What evidence have we that there is anything beyond this life? One life is probably all we get. So let's learn to enjoy and appreciate this one life. You might find this thread helpful in understanding another view.

If the resurrection is not a "fact-event", then what does our hope in being resurrected mean? That it won't be a "fact-event" either?

I think it is wise to be prepared that it is not.

But then I haven't been fully convinced of evolution as a purely naturalistic process. There are many areas in the evolutionary model that are still problematic (though I am leaning toward a theistic evolutionary approach). I just can't seem to convince myself that every living thing on earth has come about purely by accident.

Do you have to? Is it necessary to know exactly how this universe came into being? Not all religions concern themselves with this question. For some of today's Christians, however, it seems to be perhaps the most important question in life. Why? Do they think God can't defend himself?

Now I see that the concept of the resurrection has to be directly related to our view of the origin of the universe and the origin of species. For we are basing our rational thought of reality on how we view the natural processes that we believe were involved in bringing us to this moment of time. Our scince is built on the observation of these things, of the material world, uyet there is so much we don't know. We can't even agree on a unified theory. Why? Because the universe isn't behaving like we thought it ought to.

You know, it's not really the responsibility of us humans to keep the universe in operation. Taking care of our own planet seems to be just a bit more than we can do.

If we are to believe in God, then it is apparent that this God has made Himself about as invisible as dark energy and dark matter, only hypothetically as we seek to experience the spiritual world. They say there are at least six more dimensions that exist beyond the four we can detect with our senses. Would it be a stretch believe that this invisible God couldn't occupy these unseen dimensions with the ability to confound reality as much as the phenonema that confounds our scientific understanding of the universe?

I don't exactly understand what you are saying here. I am not into Buddhist metaphysics. There are things I prefer to just accept on faith, things such as the operation of the universe by some force that I cannot name or understand or imagine.

Resurrection seems far fetched for us, but maybe we just don't understand the mechanics of such an event occurring due to our limited knowledge. Which I suppose brings us back to faith. But it is a faith that is hopeful that something like this might have a scientific explanation to it that we don't understand. At least I'd like to think that way.

Again, why is it important?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I think it is wise to be prepared that it is not.

Why is it important that we be prepared for the non-factuality of the bodily resurrection?

[RubySera_Martin]

So we won't be too disappointed if it doesn't happen. Of course, if we're dead and have lost all forms of consciousness we won't know it I guess. I think there can also be ethical implications. If we think this life is but the preparation for the hereafter we might not take this life as seriously--both negatively and possitively.

Negative: We will think our sins are covered in Jesus' blood and if we miss the mark we can always get forgiveness and acquire eternal life.

Possitive: It's the only life we have so we need to find a way to enjoy it in a healthy way. Experience the good feelings of true happiness that comes from living in harmony and good will with others.

[Dondi]

Well, Ruby,

After pretty much dismantling my post, I have a question for you.

How much of Christianity do you wish to keep? I suspect you'll be brief in you answer, for I don't think there is much left, IYHO.

Kinda makes me wonder why you hold onto Christianity at all.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

How much of Christianity do you wish to keep? I suspect you'll be brief in you answer, for I don't think there is much left, IYHO....Kinda makes me wonder why you hold onto Christianity at all.

The blessing of this space... a discussion as to the complete breadth of those that get something out of the teachings, the stories of Jesus and his path to becoming Christ.

There is much mythology and hyperbole in the bible, this we know. The question is how much fact is there. And what has some fact but has been embellished. And this has a variety of answers based on where one is in their thought...Not saying this is right and that is wrong. As has been discussed: none of us were there; there were no video cameras; there were no reporters on the scene taking an active role in correctly documenting the story; untrained eyewitness accounts is fully known by every judge, defense lawyer and prosecuting attorney to be completely unreliable (but extremely convincing to the masses and juries); and we know that stories when retold get modifed for the audience and fish grow bigger over time.

To me these stories are the Christian Mythology and as such have extreme value. Like someone breaking the four minute mile....helps others to follow that direction.

[neosnoia]

"Warning, the following might be a bit off topic."

Hi InLove!

Originally Posted by InLove

I do too. This is what I mean when I say that the Bible is "layered" and “transcendental”.

And orthodoxy agrees. The layering of scripture is not a liberal phenomena (which I didn't know as a fundamentalist).

I came across a post by Thomas yesterday that talked about the four ways to interpret a text:

Literal sense:
the literal meaning of the words, as understood according to the genre of the text. Here one should meditate upon what the words mean - in the parables, such as the treasure hidden in the field, what is the treasure, what is the field?

Allegorical sense:
what the text signifies with regard to objective reality, as opposed to the veils of manifestation and their subjective forms;

Moral or tropological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to how one should conduct oneself according to the nature of the revelation. Essentially in Christianity this sense signifies the practice of virtue towards detachment from the world of appearances and the forging of an immortal soul.

Anagogical or eschatological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to the four 'last things', death and the various eschatalogical states.

I visited an interesting website today (thanks, neosnoia)

You're welcome!

[neosnoia]

Originally Posted by dondi

And that distinction ought not to be overlooked, for old wine doesn't get poured into new wineskins .

Cool interpretation of that text. I've never thought of it that way before.

[neosnoia]

Originally Posted by Ruby

Jesus said very little that is original. Read Plato, Aristotle, and all the other philosophers before and during the time of Jesus. Socrates is reported by Plato to have said things that Jesus said (according to the NT account) six centuries later.

This is very true.

Earlier Jewish writers borrowed from Near East philosophy in the writing of the Genesis account and other books.

Jesus was certainly familiar with Greek philosophy. So was Paul, who quoted other thinkers. Both he and Jesus embraced truth wherever they found it.

[neosnoia]

Originally Posted by Ruby

You're taking all your evidence from the Bible. Even for secular court, one person's word is not accepted to establish truth. How much more when it comes to something as serious as one's eternal salvation should we seek evidence from more than one source.

That confused me. You're seeking evidence from more than one source because it's important to "one's eternal salvation," which is itself a Biblical concept?

Did I misunderstand? If so, I apologize. It just confused me is all.

[neosnoia]

Originally Posted by ruby

If we think this life is but the preparation for the hereafter we might not take this life as seriously ...

I find this frustrating too, especially since "preparation for the hereafter" is not a Biblical concept, although many Christians believe it is.

The Bible teaches that man will inherit the Earth. This should make us want to cherish and take care of it.

The Bible talks about bringing Heaven to Earth, not going to Heaven.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by neosnoia

This is very true.

Earlier Jewish writers borrowed from Near East philosophy in the writing of the Genesis account and other books.

Jesus was certainly familiar with Greek philosophy. So was Paul, who quoted other thinkers. Both he and Jesus embraced truth wherever they found it.

In the matter that neither Jesus nor Paul were original, I can agree. Jesus' rabbinical teachings shows in parables and sayings he taught, but He seemed to have a greater grasp of spiritual matters than anyone else of His day, even confounded those Jewish teachers in the temple at age twelve.

And Paul employed rhetorical questions in the books of Romans in the same vein as in the Socratic dialogues.

All this lends to the idea that there is nothing new in truth. That truth has always been available, but there have been those who have been able to express truth with such effeciency and effect. Or perhaps there needs to one who can reveal truth to their generation and circumstances. Most every culture has some form of the Golden Rule and perhaps some unified theme or set of truths can be derived from this.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by neosnoia

"Warning, the following might be a bit off topic."

Hi InLove!



And orthodoxy agrees. The layering of scripture is not a liberal phenomena (which I didn't know as a fundamentalist).

I came across a post by Thomas yesterday that talked about the four ways to interpret a text:

Literal sense:
the literal meaning of the words, as understood according to the genre of the text. Here one should meditate upon what the words mean - in the parables, such as the treasure hidden in the field, what is the treasure, what is the field?

Allegorical sense:
what the text signifies with regard to objective reality, as opposed to the veils of manifestation and their subjective forms;

Moral or tropological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to how one should conduct oneself according to the nature of the revelation. Essentially in Christianity this sense signifies the practice of virtue towards detachment from the world of appearances and the forging of an immortal soul.

Anagogical or eschatological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to the four 'last things', death and the various eschatalogical states.



You're welcome!

Kay, I took a course on the history of hermeneutics this spring and the four modes of interpretation listed here are but four. There are many other ways. Thomas is Roman Catholic and fairly traditional or orthdox is my take. This is important insofar as it influences what interpretative methods one considers legitimate.

Since in this thread we're talking about exactly what certain biblical passages mean this post does not seem off-topic to me.

Dondi, as to how much of Christianity I am keeping, well, I don't know. As you observed on another thread that I seem to know what I believe but don't know where it fits in. Given that at least one person on this forum has openly stated being a fundamentalist, and another has openly stated not being a Christian of any sort, posting on this forum in no way indicates that a person considers him or herself as a liberal Christian. I think you are responding more out of frustration that I "dismantled" your post than anything else. I asked you quite a number of genuine questions and you answered none of them. I really don't know why not.

Oops! I gotta go. Appointment.

Ruby

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Dondi, as to how much of Christianity I am keeping, well, I don't know. As you observed on another thread that I seem to know what I believe but don't know where it fits in. Given that at least one person on this forum has openly stated being a fundamentalist, and another has openly stated not being a Christian of any sort, posting on this forum in no way indicates that a person considers him or herself as a liberal Christian. I think you are responding more out of frustration that I "dismantled" your post than anything else. I asked you quite a number of genuine questions and you answered none of them. I really don't know why not.

I'm just trying to nail down where you are coming from. What you want from Christianity, that's all. On one hand, you have expressed distain over how you were treated by several churches you've been a part of. But on the other hand, at least from what I can gather, judging from your last post, it seems to me that your beef is not with those churches but more rather the biblical doctrines those churches espouse. It seems that everything orthodox is melting away from you. You don't see the literal interpretation of scripture, you don't believe the historical perspective of Christ as presented by the Gospels, even to the point that you doubt that Jesus was even a literal person, much less that He even rose from the dead. And now you even seem to doubt that there is any life after this at all, which puts the idea of a resurrection as a moot discussion for you, doesn't it?

All you pretty much have left from Christianity is the Golden Rule. And that can be found in most every other religion. Perhaps Christianity isn't for you.

But I will respond to you posts anyway:

Originally Posted by Ruby

You're taking all your evidence from the Bible. Even for secular court, one person's word is not accepted to establish truth. How much more when it comes to something as serious as one's eternal salvation should we seek evidence from more than one source.

The Bible is not just one person's word. You have the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James, in the NT. There is also talk of resurrection in OT passages like Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12. In addition, many of the extrabiblical books like the gnostic books mention the resurrection.

How many sources do you require? Where are you getting your "truth"?

Originally Posted by Ruby

Why is the resurrection seriously important? What evidence have we that there is anything beyond this life? One life is probably all we get. So let's learn to enjoy and appreciate this one life. You might find this (knowledge and belief) thread helpful in understanding another view.

Other than Jesus' resurrection witneesed by His disciples and Paul's testimony of seeing the "third heaven" and John's "Revelation"? There are documented near-death experiences. I suppose that's about the closest we can to knwing that there is a heaven.

But if you are going to ask what evidence is there that there is an after life, you might as well ask what evidence is there for God. You are absolutely right in that this life counts. For in Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethesmene he says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3. If nothing else, life is in knowing God. And that starts here and now. So if I can know God now and see Him work in my life and experience the abundant life and joy that he has promised us we can have when we obey Him here, then I can have confidence that that life in God will transcend my death. And even if it doesn't, I will have at least enjoyed the life that He has bestowed upon me now. But there is still that element of hope coming from His Word, that eternity awaits us.

No, I don't think we ought to be overly preoccupied with the future afterlife. But it does serve as a motivating promise from God, so that I can begin living in His kingdom now.

Originally Posted by Ruby

Do you have to? Is it necessary to know exactly how this universe came into being? Not all religions concern themselves with this question. For some of today's Christians, however, it seems to be perhaps the most important question in life. Why? Do they think God can't defend himself?

I'm not out to defend Christianity by trying to prove to the world that God created the world. But I do think for myself it is important to believe that God created me. I rather like the idea that I was put here for a divine purpose, rather than a secular one.

Originally Posted by Ruby

You know, it's not really the responsibility of us humans to keep the universe in operation. Taking care of our own planet seems to be just a bit more than we can do

I don't exactly understand what you are saying here. I am not into Buddhist metaphysics. There are things I prefer to just accept on faith, things such as the operation of the universe by some force that I cannot name or understand or imagine.

I think you missed my point here. When I spoke of the universe not behaving as we thought, I merely meant that we keep discovering idiosyncrocies in physics that we've yet to explain. I am not even trying to prove what you call "Buddhist metaphysics". But you even said yourself that you take the operation of the universe by faith and it is in that same regard to faith that I draw parallels about God's role in it and the resurrection.