Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?

[InLove]

Hi, Peace--

Originally Posted by 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.

No worries, Dondi. This is a busy place! Easy to miss a post now and then. Worked out well, anyway.

InPeace,
InLove

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by wil

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.

Wil, I like this. It is good to know one does not have to subscribe to orthodox Christian beliefs in order to identify as a Christian. If someone wants to further discuss what qualifies a person to identify as a Christian, perhaps a new thread should be started.

Ruby

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by neosnoia

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.

Not sure what you are apologizing for. That quote was written to Dondi.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Dondi

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."

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?

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'm enjoying your posts here!

Isn't Paul talking about THE resurrection at the eschaton? I'd have to do some reading to see if I think an argument could be supported that those resurrected at the end-time, biggie resurrection are returned to their mortal bodies. I dunno though, because the closer you get to Revelation the more diverse the eschatological speculations become.

Here's a question: When Jesus was "taken up" into heaven...how did that happen? Did he blink out, fade, or just fly off? IOW, what kind of physical body did he have post-resurrection, and how did he transition from that body to whatever kind of body he has in heaven?

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

I gotta hit Dondi again:

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.

Well, why not be a Christian then? I mean, if you're already ethnically Christian, and there's not any substantial difference between the mainstream religions sans literality... I don't have the energy to do all that costume party stuff the neo-Pagans love so much. I can't be Jewish, don't feel like meditating...so, why not?

Chris

[jiii]

Well, Ruby, you have cleared up most of my confusion with your post. I am not sure though what more I can say without restating myself in different ways.

From an objective standpoint, there is no reason to believe resurrection physically occurs except for accounts from antiquity. So why do people believe it? I guess I can't say for sure, so my old post attempted explain certain reasons why people might do so. If you find these possiblities to be appalling...well, I guess it is strange from a certain point of view, but unless these beliefs are being used to validate violence, whether physical or psychological, I don't think they are necessarily a terrible and inhumane thing. In your case, it seems like certain psychological violence WAS done to you by these ideas, which is most unfortunate. However, not everyone that believes in, say, a physical resurrection feels that way.

There have been countless mainstream beliefs in irrational ideas over the course of human history...the best example that I can think of was mentioned in a rhetorical question by somebody on this discussion...LOVE. The idea of romantic love and 'finding a soul mate' was a laughable concept right up until the Middle Ages in Europe when the troubadors starting singing passionately about it. Nowadays, a wealth of people honestly believe that romantic, 'soul-mate' love is the 'highest' love, if not the only 'real' love that exists. Irrational? Quite possibly so.

-jiii

[neosnoia]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Not sure what you are apologizing for. That quote was written to Dondi.

I understood that the quote was written to Dondi. Nevermind on the rest.

[jiii]

originally posted by RubySera_Martin

Again, I don't know where you are getting your information. Protestants and fundamentalists are NOT the same thing. Anybody can be a fundamentalist regardless of religious persuasion. Very many Protestant Christians are NOT fundamentalists.

LOL... it seems like you and I haven't been able to communicate too effectively Ruby.

My goal was not to go into a in-depth history of Protestantism, citing every example of every aspect. I was certainly making a broad generalization, but I don't think that so far as generalizations go it was a particularly inaccurate one. Protestantism did, BY AND LARGE, develop in "protest" to the Catholic Church's instituted interpretation of the Bible...it's that simple. Here's a dictionary definition:

Prot·es·tant (prt-stnt)
n.

1. A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.
2. A member of a Western Christian church adhering to the theologies of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.
3. One of the German princes and cities that supported the doctrines of Luther and protested against the decision of the second Diet of Speyer (1529) to enforce the Edict of Worms (1521) and deny toleration to Lutherans.

As far as my dates for religions, I really just went to sections for individual religions here at CR. Clearly, I made a mistake when I was writing BC/AD...sorry.

As for defining itself, every single Protestant group definitely defined itself. The defining mark of Protestantim may be said to be its appeal to the scripture alone for its authority. Because, as stated above, the Bible can be understood in so many different ways, the splintering of Protestantism has not stopped to the present day. The best antidote for the splintering that I see is interfaith and ecumenical movements.

Okay...that's really all I'm referring to...the continued splintering. In that respect, Protestantism as a categorization may be pretty defined, but the individual sects of Protestantism are anything but crystallized in their current form...thus, the splintering.

I don't think that Protestant is a cognate of fundamentalism...I didn't express that AT ALL...whatsoever. Do I need to say "Not all Protestants" before I say anything and everything that someone might interpret negatively about Protestantism? Of course all Protestants aren't fundamentalists! Fundamentalists are a minority in all religions world-wide. Maybe I should've mentioned that first? It just seems like you are interpreting everything I mentioned in it's most negative possible light.

Ruby, you seem to think that I consider myself some kind of scholar...That isn't the case...I'm just an auto mechanic. Though, I will tell you that my ideas are not anything new, and they are not entirely dreamed up by me. If you would like to read books on religion and philosophy that might explain some of the viewpoints I express I can recommend some titles for you.

-jiii

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

Ruby, you seem to think that I consider myself some kind of scholar...That isn't the case...I'm just an auto mechanic. Though, I will tell you that my ideas are not anything new, and they are not entirely dreamed up by me. If you would like to read books on religion and philosophy that might explain some of the viewpoints I express I can recommend some titles for you.

-jiii

You speak with the authority of a scholar. Just the way you say things so confidently as though you knew all the literature on it. That's probably what confused me. About the titles, I'll probably stick with what my prof and MA thesis committee suggest. I like these boards because of the grass-roots material they provide--the stuff before it gets into the journals and textbooks.

[jiii]

Sorry, Ruby, but if after every idea I express I felt it was important to cite that "thats one way to look at it", then my post would be 50% apologetics for expressing a viewpoint and only 50% viewpoint. So, I guess that when you read some of my posts in the future, consider that I would often say about them that "that's only one viewpoint."

[InLove]

Hi, Peace to All--

Originally Posted by InLove

John 3:13-15 records Jesus as saying:

"No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. (MSG)

Originally Posted by taijasi

I think of this as the Mystical Christ speaking. This is St. Paul's "Christ in us, the Hope of Glory."

taijasi--I would like to discuss this subject further with you. I find it very interesting, and I want to understand more from your perspective. I have done some reading since you posted this, and I have some questions, so I intend to visit you in another "garden" soon. Just wanted to go ahead and respond, and let you know that I am thinking about your words.


InPeace,
InLove

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by jiii

Sorry, Ruby, but if after every idea I express I felt it was important to cite that "thats one way to look at it", then my post would be 50% apologetics for expressing a viewpoint and only 50% viewpoint. So, I guess that when you read some of my posts in the future, consider that I would often say about them that "that's only one viewpoint."

I will, Jiii. Thanks for explaining.

Ruby

[InLove]

Hi, Peace--

This might interest both of you.

Originally Posted by neosnoia

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

Originally Posted by RubySera_ Martin

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.

You know what? I had never heard of “layering” when I came up with this way of talking about the Bible a few years ago. It was just the way I described my own experience. Then one day, I was doing some reading (I don’t think it was in CR), and discovered that it was widely used terminology. I don't remember if the article was a Christian publication or secular, but I do remember that it cited this kind of talk as “annoying”. Go figure…

InPeace,
InLove

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by InLove

John 3:13-15 records Jesus as saying:

"No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. (MSG)

InLove, that passage is genius. It explains why Christ is central for the Christian religion, does not matter if you see it from a literal or metaphorical point of view. It suggests that there is an essential human need to follow, to trust, to look up to someone/something.

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi, Peace--

This might interest both of you.








You know what? I had never heard of “layering” when I came up with this way of talking about the Bible a few years ago. It was just the way I described my own experience. Then one day, I was doing some reading (I don’t think it was in CR), and discovered that it was widely used terminology. I don't remember if the article was a Christian publication or secular, but I do remember that it cited this kind of talk as “annoying”. Go figure…

InPeace,
InLove

All great literature is layered. It is one of the hallmarks of writings of great depth that they have the ability to express many things to many people with great diversity in their backgrounds.

flow....