Thread: If we found the bones of Jesus Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026388
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Would that destroy Christianity?
Then I thought, "No, God could just have created a new body for Jesus Christ."
But then I thought, if a person receives a second body, would it still be the same person?
[ 10. October 2013, 01:30: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Just to repeat a joke I posted recently,
A Dominican, a Benedictine, and a Jesuit go to Israel for an archeological dig. They discover a tomb marked "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph, crucified by Pontius Pilate" with bones inside.
The Dominican cries "Everything the Church teaches is a lie!"
The Benedictine insists "We must build a shrine for these holy bones."
The Jesuit says "What do you know, he did exist."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
How would that be authenticated? It's unknowable at this late date.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Just to repeat a joke I posted recently,
A Dominican, a Benedictine, and a Jesuit go to Israel for an archeological dig. They discover a tomb marked "Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Joseph, crucified by Pontius Pilate" with bones inside.
The Dominican cries "Everything the Church teaches is a lie!"
The Benedictine insists "We must build a shrine for these holy bones."
The Jesuit says "What do you know, he did exist."
Lovely, may I repost?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I dunno. Wondering about that other thread about space aliens. What if we found out Jesus was a Martian? Just as likely I think.
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on
:
1. It would require us to re-think (but not necessarily do away with) the theology of incarnation.
2. Linked to (1), the Counil of Chalcedon would need to be re-visited (the Nestorians could make a comeback...!!)
3. Where would these bones be found? Presumably on the territory of what today is Israel. Oh dear. Time for another crusade. And then time for some serious bickering among the Christian nations about who should be the Guardian of The Bones. Yeehaaaa...
3. the bombshell of this discovery would move women bishops, gay marriages, contraception, the pope's new old cars and other trivia to the background. Where they belonged in the first place.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
It would be utterly irrelevant. As David Jenkins said, the Resurrection is not about "a conjuring trick with old bones".
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Dan Brown and his cronies have already found them. Jesus' descendants live in France (as last heard).
Sensible people, I think.
Makes no nevermind to a Christian.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
It seems to me there are two questions.
a) If someone claimed to have found the bones would you believe them?
b) If you really were forced by the evidence to believe them (not sure how but say you were) what would we say about Christianity?
For a) I could only imagine quite weak levels of evidence being available to demonstrate they really were Jesus' bones. Hence my "pre-test" belief that Jesus was resurrected would survive this weak challenge.
On b) I guess it demonstrates how much one's faith depends on a literal resurrection (and/or literal ascension). In my case I do believe in the former and so it would make me struggle. I probably would go on with some form of belief but it would be very much weaker in faith and practice, and I imagine would gradually dwindle.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me there are two questions.
a) If someone claimed to have found the bones would you believe them?
b) If you really were forced by the evidence to believe them (not sure how but say you were) what would we say about Christianity?
For a) I could only imagine quite weak levels of evidence being available to demonstrate they really were Jesus' bones. Hence my "pre-test" belief that Jesus was resurrected would survive this weak challenge.
On b) I guess it demonstrates how much one's faith depends on a literal resurrection (and/or literal ascension). In my case I do believe in the former and so it would make me struggle. I probably would go on with some form of belief but it would be very much weaker in faith and practice, and I imagine would gradually dwindle.
Quite agree, and love the joke too.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
It seems to me very unlikely that there could be evidence of Jesus' bones. Unless the Gospel accounts are complete fiction, the one fact of the Easter weekend that all parties seem to agree on is that the tomb was empty, the body was missing. If the body had been removed and hidden, it seems unlikely that any information identifying it would have been left with it.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Would that destroy Christianity?
Then I thought, "No, God could just have created a new body for Jesus Christ."
But then I thought, if a person receives a second body, would it still be the same person?
Such questions are pointless and rather silly, if you ask me. However, since you asked the question...
The answer is yes. If it was not the same Christ who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven as the one who died on the cross then we have no hope either.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
What lies behind these "what if...?" scenarios?
Are they just an exercise of the imagination?
Hypothesis type A: "What if you dropped a 2kg iron ball off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa and it floated in the air, would you still believe in the law of gravity?"
I think most people would regard such a hypothesis as so frivolous as to be nothing more than a waste of breath.
Or is this hypothesising an indication of doubt? Or perhaps even an attempt to sow doubt in the minds of believers?
Hypothesis type B: "What if tomorrow a bunker full of chemical weapons was discovered in Iraq with clear evidence of the late Saddam Hussein's involvement, would you still believe that Blair's dodgy dossier was actually dodgy?"
That sounds like a far more sensible hypothesis to consider, given that we cannot be 100% sure that Saddam Hussein did actually get rid of all his WMD.
So which category are we talking about, when considering the resurrection of Jesus?
Is the hypothesis a plausible position, or not?
I think, as an intellectual exercise, it hovers between the two, but is nearer to 'A' than 'B'. I am completely convinced that such bones will never be found, but I guess we must still consider the possibility as an exercise in processing evidence, if nothing else.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Would that destroy Christianity?
As far as I am concerned, yes. I would still be a philosophical theist, and I would still value some of the Christian insights. But if I were convinced that Christ's bones have been found, I would drop Christianity basically instantly and consider other religious options anew. (As others have commented, it is really hard to see how a convincing case for some bones being those of Christ could be made now. But we can assume for the sake of the discussion that this somehow is possible.)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I think what I am really asking about is the physicality of the Resurrection. One priest to me once preached that we do not have the same molecules that we had when we were born. In effect, the body I have now is not the same body as I had when I was born.
So in that regard he made the point that the notion that the Resurrection body of the risen Lord is identical to the pre-Easter body of Jesus of Nazareth is superfluous. Now for Easter faith of course, there needs to be continuity between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Christ (To use Marcus Borg's terminology) There needs to be a single Subject.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think what I am really asking about is the physicality of the Resurrection. One priest to me once preached that we do not have the same molecules that we had when we were born. In effect, the body I have now is not the same body as I had when I was born.
There is however no discontinuity in your body as you grow up. Rather there is an ongoing dynamics there which is always replacing some molecules, but never all.
It is a really interesting question whether some kind of bodily continuity must be maintained in the resurrection. I just think that Jesus is precisely not the Person to ask this about. Because clearly in the case of Jesus a resurrection that included the re-uptake of His corpse in some manner was a symbolic act, and necessary in that symbolic sense given the social circumstances. The disciples needed to find the tomb empty, even if it were the case that "technically" Jesus' resurrection body could be entirely unrelated to His previous material body.
It could be the case that for most people their resurrection bodies do not have any kind of direct continuity to their previous material bodies. Possibly one could make this argument based on the sharing of molecules that must be going on. (If lots of my body is made up of molecules that once were in other people's bodies, then who is going to get those molecules?) However, I would still maintain that finding Christ's remains would kill Christianity, since Christianity is effectively founded on not finding Christ's remains...
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think what I am really asking about is the physicality of the Resurrection. One priest to me once preached that we do not have the same molecules that we had when we were born. In effect, the body I have now is not the same body as I had when I was born.
So in that regard he made the point that the notion that the Resurrection body of the risen Lord is identical to the pre-Easter body of Jesus of Nazareth is superfluous. Now for Easter faith of course, there needs to be continuity between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Christ (To use Marcus Borg's terminology) There needs to be a single Subject.
No one said identical. The same body but transfigured.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
As we're dealing with outlandish hypotheticals to start with, what if it could be shown that the bones were indeed Jesus', but they also provided physical evidence that He had been crucified and died but then lived for several months afterwards?
To put it another way, what if the bones proved the Resurrection but disproved the Ascension?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Anglican_Brat: One priest to me once preached that we do not have the same molecules that we had when we were born.
This is an urban myth. Quite a number of our molecules (and even cells) stay with us from our birth to our death.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I am cynical enough to believe that plenty of Christians would carry on as if nothing was different.
I might become Jewish. I dunno.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
It would be utterly irrelevant. As David Jenkins said, the Resurrection is not about "a conjuring trick with old bones".
Well ISTR Jenkins said that it was "more than a conjuring trick with bones".
I can go with that insofar as the resurrection is more than a resuscitation. The new life is more than the old life.
I think he's wrong though if he's implying that the resurrection is "not physical but purely spiritual" and that the physical resurrection is irrelevant.
A "purely spiritual resurrection" would be un-Incarnational, kind of Gnostic - "The body doesn't matter, only the spirit..." - Bones are important, just as much part of us as anything else! Why shouldn't God redeem and resurrect them?
Besides, the early Church kind of pinned its colours to the mast on this one.
So yes, I think pretty devastating. A Gnostic-ky sort of belief might still be tenable.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As we're dealing with outlandish hypotheticals to start with, what if it could be shown that the bones were indeed Jesus', but they also provided physical evidence that He had been crucified and died but then lived for several months afterwards?
To put it another way, what if the bones proved the Resurrection but disproved the Ascension?
No good. Not a proper Resurrection then, only a resuscitation - just some more of the old life, not the new life. Actually probably worse than Jenkins' idea.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter
It would require us to re-think (but not necessarily do away with) the theology of incarnation.
Maybe it would lead to a Christian theology of RE-incarnation?
But I remember some sage, maybe Lewis or Muggeridge, being asked the same question and replying, "those precious, precious bones."
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How would that be authenticated? It's unknowable at this late date.
Well, they didn't seem to have any trouble "authenticating" splinters from the True Cross, the Manger, Mary Magdalene's pet cat's scratching post, or God knows what else. I'm sure they'd find a way.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I assumed we were talking just pure hypotheticals here. IF we could prove beyond doubt that the resurrection never happened...
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How would that be authenticated? It's unknowable at this late date.
Well, they didn't seem to have any trouble "authenticating" splinters from the True Cross, the Manger, Mary Magdalene's pet cat's scratching post, or God knows what else.
What happens these days is that some people are convinced, but most of the world's Christians remain unimpressed. I don't see how 'the bones of Jesus' would escape such a fate. Such 'authentication' wouldn't really solve anything, but simply create yet another reason for Christians to disagree with each other!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What IngoB said. If Christ is not raised, then we are of all men most to be pitied.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
How would that be authenticated? It's unknowable at this late date.
Well, they didn't seem to have any trouble "authenticating" splinters from the True Cross, the Manger, Mary Magdalene's pet cat's scratching post, or God knows what else. I'm sure they'd find a way.
Uh, yeah. Like I trust all of those. I doubt you believe every claimed relic from antiquity is authentic, either. Remember St. James' Ossuary a few years back? So many people got so excited. Turned out to be a hoax. Is the Shroud of Turin really Jesus' burial cloth? We cannot possibly know at this date.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I assumed we were talking just pure hypotheticals here. IF we could prove beyond doubt that the resurrection never happened...
Then it would be a very different kind of world than the one we inhabit.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The advantage of calling it a "hypothetical" is that we don't have to do the work of imagining how such a situation came about.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The advantage of calling it a "hypothetical" is that we don't have to do the work of imagining how such a situation came about.
Then see the above comment about dropping 2-ton weights from the top of the Tower of Pisa. If we're imagining an immovable force meeting an irresistible object, then anything goes. If we found and verified Jesus' bones, I'd sell my purple cow and buy a time machine.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Which, mysteriously, hasn't prevented you from answering what this hypothetical is actually getting at, "What IngoB said. If Christ is not raised, then we are of all men most to be pitied."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Which, mysteriously, hasn't prevented you from answering what this hypothetical is actually getting at, "What IngoB said. If Christ is not raised, then we are of all men most to be pitied."
Yes. The question, "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead but just decomposed in the grave, would it change your faith?" is an interesting and telling question about the nature and content of Christian faith, so I answered it.
The question, "If we could prove beyond a doubt that we found Jesus' femur, would would that mean to you?" requires so much suspension of disbelief (and I don't mean religious belief) it becomes anything-goes woo-woo land.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I'm not disagreeing with you, MT. I fully understand that it would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt that said femur was Jesus'. I was just wondering if it was possible to, just for the sake of thought experimenting, throw epistemology to the wind and think about how you would build a theology around the discovery of Jesus' femur.
The OP suggested that Jesus' resurrection could be a new creation. Others have said, ourselves included, that the Christian faith would have been a botch from the start. For myself, I say so because, while it is certainly much more, the resurrection can be nothing less than meat and bones getting up and walking again.
[ 10. October 2013, 16:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I hope the humanism I have gained in Christ would survive my loss of Him.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The OP suggested that [should Jesus' femur be discovered,] Jesus' resurrection could be a new creation. Others have said, ourselves included, that the Christian faith would have been a botch from the start. For myself, I say so because, while it is certainly much more, the resurrection can be nothing less than meat and bones getting up and walking again.
Yep. Destroy this temple and I will raise it up again. Not raise up some other temple with certain similarities.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
In a sense it does not matter. If Christ's death reconciles us with God, no matter how, then the resurrection is non-essential. I do not think we would be good at believing it though. In some ways the fact that Christ had completed the deal and did not need to return makes to do so, makes it so awesome.
Jengie
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
In a sense it does not matter. If Christ's death reconciles us with God, no matter how, then the resurrection is non-essential.
This is why a soteriology that ends at the cross is one of the most dangerous falsehoods to emerge from the Reformation.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am cynical enough to believe that plenty of Christians would carry on as if nothing was different.
Indeed so . I daresay I'd be one of those .
Having never really got past toe-dipping re Christian faith , I don't think the DNA verified bones of Jesus would make me remove my toe from a belief in the , not clearly defined , 'Other' .
The man Jesus died believing his death would not be the end . The discovery of his bones wouldn't alter that.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
In a sense it does not matter. If Christ's death reconciles us with God, no matter how, then the resurrection is non-essential.
This is why a soteriology that ends at the cross is one of the most dangerous falsehoods to emerge from the Reformation.
Ohfergoshsakes. Why are you pinning THAT on the Reformation????
I'm a freakin' 16th century dinosaur Lutheran, and the Resurrection is as important or more than the cross. Which no one I know IRL denies.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
This seems to me to be as facile as the Shroud of Turin myth.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Well, they didn't seem to have any trouble "authenticating" splinters from the True Cross, the Manger, Mary Magdalene's pet cat's scratching post, or God knows what else. I'm sure they'd find a way.
Uh, yeah. Like I trust all of those. I doubt you believe every claimed relic from antiquity is authentic, either.
My point precisely. I don't.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The OP suggested that [should Jesus' femur be discovered,] Jesus' resurrection could be a new creation. Others have said, ourselves included, that the Christian faith would have been a botch from the start. For myself, I say so because, while it is certainly much more, the resurrection can be nothing less than meat and bones getting up and walking again.
Yep. Destroy this temple and I will raise it up again. Not raise up some other temple with certain similarities.
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15: quote:
what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body...What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. ....It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. ...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Zach82: quote:
I fully understand that it would be impossible to prove beyond a doubt that said femur was Jesus'. I was just wondering if it was possible to, just for the sake of thought experimenting, throw epistemology to the wind and think about how you would build a theology around the discovery of Jesus' femur.
Count me in with Mousethief and IngoB. I don't see how you could maintain the Christian orthodox view of Jesus if you could prove that those old bones you found belonged to him. But at this distance in time it would be impossible to prove; Jesus, Mary and Joseph are all common names so finding a grave labelled 'Jesus bar Joseph' that is dateable to roughly the right period in history doesn't mean much. Just as proving that the Turin Shroud was really used to wrap a crucified corpse sometime in the first century AD wouldn't prove that it's THE shroud.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This seems to me to be as facile as the Shroud of Turin myth.
The Shroud might well be genuine.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This seems to me to be as facile as the Shroud of Turin myth.
The Shroud might well be genuine.
Except for that pesky carbon dating they did which definitively proved it wasn't.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
This reminds me of the old notion that someone might dig up the privy of the first-century house of Lazarus in Bethany and analyze the contents. Imagine the headlines!
The premise of the original post involves assuming something that seems wildly unlikely. If someone turns up with such bones, it is easy to think of ways one could prove they are not the bones of Jesus, but practically impossible to think of a way to prove they are his bones.
A similar argument is about the Shroud of Turin. It may or may not be the shroud of Jesus. One can readily imagine finding proof that it is not his shroud, but again, there is no way to prove that it actually is his shroud.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This seems to me to be as facile as the Shroud of Turin myth.
The Shroud might well be genuine.
Except for that pesky carbon dating they did which definitively proved it wasn't.
Carbon dating done by taking fragments which wouldn't spoil the main part of the cloth and which were, therefore, part of the medieval fabric used for mending the shroud after fire.
quote:
"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic,"...[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," ...."This stuff was manipulated - it was coloured on purpose.[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," "The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined in 1988. However, the shroud itself is actually much older."
Rogers, retired chemist from Los Alamos National aboratory in New Mexico, US.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Would that destroy Christianity?
As far as I am concerned, yes. I would still be a philosophical theist, and I would still value some of the Christian insights. But if I were convinced that Christ's bones have been found, I would drop Christianity basically instantly and consider other religious options anew.
Same for me.
It wouldn't greatly affect the reasons for believing in God. Christian ethics would still be valuable. Jesus' teaching and character would still be one of the glories of the story of religion. But the specifically Christian story would be finished.
It would, IMO, have been possible for Jesus to have been resurrected spiritually, or in a new material body, but that is not what the apostles bore witness to. The accounts are of a physical resurrection of the same body that was crucified. That's what they proclaimed as the gospel. If that turns out to be untrue, we have little more reason to believe that Christ had some other sort of resurrection than we do to believe that of any other good or holy person. If the remarkable thing which the apostles did claim is false, why would we believe that a remarkable thing true which they did not claim?
And that would have consequences about how far I could trust in Jesus for salvation. I'd still believe that God was good, and that Jesus, being good in the way I hope that God is, would still represent a way to live that I hope would be God pleasing. But since I fail when I try to live that way, I would find it hard to think that his life has materially improved my chances of seeing heaven.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Did the Gospels drop out of the bibles at your church? How bizarre.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
This seems to me to be as facile as the Shroud of Turin myth.
The Shroud might well be genuine.
Except for that pesky carbon dating they did which definitively proved it wasn't.
Carbon dating done by taking fragments which wouldn't spoil the main part of the cloth and which were, therefore, part of the medieval fabric used for mending the shroud after fire.
quote:
"The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic,"...[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," ...."This stuff was manipulated - it was coloured on purpose.[The radiocarbon sample] has obvious painting medium, a dye and a mordant that doesn't show anywhere else," "The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined in 1988. However, the shroud itself is actually much older."
Rogers, retired chemist from Los Alamos National aboratory in New Mexico, US.
Seriously, who the hell cares? The reason finding the bones of Jesus might affect the faith of people is because there aren't supposed to be any bones. The existence of a burial shroud for Jesus is not in dispute. Whether a particular shroud is Jesus' shroud or someone else's shroud is a debate with no theological significance whatsoever, except for people who like the idolatry of worshiping inanimate objects.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Did the Gospels drop out of the bibles at your church? How bizarre.
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
[ 12. October 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If the bones of Jesus were found and authenticated to the satisfaction of the whole world(!) it would at least prove that Jesus existed. There are some atheists around who find that hard to believe.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That would seem to contradict Paul's idea of a new, nor re, creation in 1 Cor 15:
I'd say that's pretty good proof you're misreading Paul. The tomb was empty. End of.
Paul never mentions the empty tomb. he seems to be unaware of it.
Did the Gospels drop out of the bibles at your church? How bizarre.
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Not literal. realistic. The NT church didn't have a party line. there were lots of different opinions and beliefs.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
I don't understand how leo can be simultaneously arguing that a) the Shroud of Turin is genuine but b) the tomb might not have been empty. If the tomb wasn't empty, how (and why) would anyone have removed the shroud?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here, which went like this:
Me: The tomb was empty
You: Paul didn't mention that.
That's not at all relevant unless anything Paul didn't mention can't be assumed to have happened. But we have the Gospels, and we as Christians assume that what they say happened, happened. Particularly something as monumental as the empty tomb. If you are going to only draw your beliefs from Paul, you're going to have a grossly distorted and rather legalistic view of Christianity.
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Not literal. realistic. The NT church didn't have a party line. there were lots of different opinions and beliefs.
You mean heresies though you would never say that ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The question, "If Jesus didn't rise from the dead but just decomposed in the grave, would it change your faith?" is an interesting and telling question about the nature and content of Christian faith, so I answered it.
But is that the question? I don't see the finding of bones as proof that there was no Resurrection event.
I Corinthians 15:44 quote:
... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
I don't think the idea that Jesus appeared to the disciples, in a real body that was recognisably and tangibly him, is incompatible with the idea that he had somehow sloughed off his earthly husk. There was definitely something unusual about the risen Christ. Why didn't they recognise him on the Emmaus road? How did he suddenly appear in their midst in a loecked room? The body was real, warm, alive, but surely not 'just' his old body re-vivified. That, in my view, is ridiculous.
If life after death is a real thing, we are stuck with the problem that we are, really, very much our bodies, and yet clearly our bodies our finite. If there is eternal then it has to be with bodies that are real but not real, located in a place not currently locatable within the known universe. So I don't personally see why anyone who is currently prepared to believe that our identities survive death should find it so hard to believe that Jesus is really alive whilst, at the same time, the bones of his erstwhile carcass are here on earth.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I don't understand how leo can be simultaneously arguing that a) the Shroud of Turin is genuine but b) the tomb might not have been empty. If the tomb wasn't empty, how (and why) would anyone have removed the shroud?
I could answer that if you want to create a new thread - here, it is a tangent.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're being rather literal in your interpretation of mousethief's point. If Paul was writing a theology that was incompatible with the empty tomb presented in the Gospels, I think it's reasonable that such a central point would have come up when compiling the Bible. It seems far more likely that they felt Paul was perfectly compatible with the empty tomb.
Not literal. realistic. The NT church didn't have a party line. there were lots of different opinions and beliefs.
You mean heresies though you would never say that
The concept of heresy didn't exist until 3 centuries later.
If you think the NT contains within itself heresies, rather than different points of view, then that is something entirely new.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But the specifically Christian story would be finished.
Each to their own of course but I think we might be being a little hard on ourselves.
OK, no verifiable remains of Jesus have come to light ,(and probably not likely to), yet just think how many Christians have secretly pondered as to whether all that supernatural stuff really happened ? The majority is my guess.
According to the Gospels, on discovering the tomb to be empty ,finding the body of Jesus didn't sound like a pressing issue for the Apostles.
I mean who's to say that in reality they didn't get to see the crucified body of Jesus in an embalmed state at some other location . Seeing it may have contributed to a transcendental experience . Something that clearly had a powerful effect on each of them , the last one being Thomas.
Although St Paul seems to the source of some disagreement above , the very fact that he succumbed to a dramatic conversion without ever meeting the historical Jesus, alive or dead, is more than enough evidence for me of Christ's power.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Bones would not change the beliefs of many people, not how it works.
Jesus himself could tell people he didn't exist, and they'd not believe him.
[ 12. October 2013, 17:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I mean who's to say that in reality they didn't get to see the crucified body of Jesus in an embalmed state at some other location . Seeing it may have contributed to a transcendental experience . Something that clearly had a powerful effect on each of them , the last one being Thomas.
If that's what happened, and they then went out into the world to proclaim that Jesus is risen, then they were mistaken. They may have been holy and mistaken, or inspired and mistaken, but they would have been simply wrong about the factual claim that most mattered to them and on which they based their teaching of faith in Christ.
And if that were proved to me, I wouldn't lose my respect for St Peter's sincerity and courage, but knowing that he was basically wrong about his central factual claim would undermine my confidence in the message of salvation that he derives from that claim.
Could I explain the apostles' teaching on the hypothesis that Jesus wasn't raised? Sure. Could I trust it? No. Because my trust isn't in St Peter's or St Thomas's transcendental experiences, and they never intended that it should be - they called people to trust not in their personal mystical insights, but in the risen Lord. It might be possible to construct a religion based on the premise that a factually mistaken view of the resurrection led to profound spiritual insights, but that religion would be conceptually different from the one traditionally known as Christianity.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
But the Christians that Paul was writing to had heard the Christian message before Paul ever wrote his letters. The letters were not meant to be a detailed description of all aspects of Christian theology. They addressed those points on which there appeared to be misunderstandings.
Moo
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
Does it? I understand Paul to be saying that the resurrected body is changed from the "earthly" body, but he still seems to assert that it is the same body that is changed, not a new body that replaces the old.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If Paul contradicts the gospels, I'd say "too bad for Paul." The Gospels were written after Paul, indicating where the Church was at the time they were written. If they had moved on from Paul's ressurectionology, then Paul's doctrine is old news, and the Gospels trump it.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I confess that this thread came to my mind partly upon reflection of Marcus Borg and Tony Jones' debate over the Resurrection over at Patheos:
Here is Tony Jones' first shot:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/10/09/dear-marcus-borg-please-reconsider-the-resurrection/
Here is Borg's response:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2013/10/response-to-tony-jones-about-the-resurrection/
And also:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2013/10/continuing-the-resurrection-conversation/
From reading the debate, I think a few conclusions can be drawn:
1) [the Stereotypical Liberal view] Very few people who describe themselves as faithful Christians would say that the Resurrection was only a subjective, psychological experience of the early Christian disciples. Jones' remark that Borg only believes that Jesus rises "in the believer's heart" is unfair.
2) [The stereotypical conservative view] Very few people think that the Resurrection was only a physical resuscitation of Jesus' pre-Easter body. The risen body of Jesus Christ is different from his Good Friday body.
In conclusion:
Can we just all say that the Resurrection is a big mystery and none of us will understand it perfectly and Our Lord is probably laughing us at now at our feeble attempts at theologizing?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
[ 12. October 2013, 22:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
The resurrection may ultimately belong in the realm of real science - that is, it really happened and, one day, we will understand the science - but it's not really there right now, is it? We don't know, and we're not even close to beginning to know, how such an event could be real. But if the resurrection is real, then why should spirit not also be real? Does the Holy Spirit not really exist?
If Jesus' body was resuscitated, it's pretty unlikely that he would have been able to stand up and walk around three days after being crucified. Of course, the resurrection could have involved a miraculous healing - but then, he wasn't healed, was he? The wounds were still there. Lucky he didn't get septicaemia.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Yes, but if the Resurrection was some kind of 'spiritual event' it wouldn't be a miracle, because it wouldn't be in conflict with real science. I rather think that is Zach's point.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Yes, but if the Resurrection was some kind of 'spiritual event' it wouldn't be a miracle, because it wouldn't be in conflict with real science. I rather think that is Zach's point.
That's the idea.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Thank you for this.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Yes, but a re-animated earthly body would not be healed to the point of scarring by the third day.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[qb] No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
If the Resurrection was in "real science", then it wouldn't be miraculous.
Yes, but if the Resurrection was some kind of 'spiritual event' it wouldn't be a miracle, because it wouldn't be in conflict with real science. I rather think that is Zach's point.
That's the idea.
That assumes that spiritual events don't or can't have objective correlatives. That assumes that spirits are so detached from bodies that the survival of a spirit after death is not, in itself, miraculous.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No. Spiritualizing the resurrection is an attempt to make it safe by banishing it from the realm of real science to some harmless realm of subjective spirit.
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
But when (if?) we are resurrected there will be no resuscitation will there? I can't see my ashes gathering themselves together after being scattered at sea.
Why would our eternal life be any different from Jesus's?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Yes, but a re-animated earthly body would not be healed to the point of scarring by the third day.
We're not talking about reanimation we're talking about resurrection. No Christian believes Jesus was reanimated. (Do they? Well some maybe do. But that's not the Church's teaching.)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We're not talking about reanimation we're talking about resurrection. No Christian believes Jesus was reanimated. (Do they? Well some maybe do. But that's not the Church's teaching.)
Same question - will my ashes fly back together to be my resurrected body, or will other matter be used?
If other matter, then Jesus could have been 'done' in the same way. If not it will be very confusing as some fish may be using my ashes at the time!
<edited to correct code>
[ 13. October 2013, 07:32: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Same question - will my ashes fly back together to be my resurrected body, or will other matter be used?
If other matter, then Jesus could have been 'done' in the same way. If not it will be very confusing as some fish may be using my ashes at the time!
I do not know what will happen to people whose atoms have been scattered. But Jesus' atoms weren't scattered; he was dead less than 48 hours. So it's rather irrelevant.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So if I have scars, I'm not healed?
Yes, but a re-animated earthly body would not be healed to the point of scarring by the third day.
We're not talking about reanimation we're talking about resurrection. No Christian believes Jesus was reanimated. (Do they? Well some maybe do. But that's not the Church's teaching.)
I don't believe that the Resurrection had anything to do with the dead body of Jesus, but I think Zach does.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The resurrection was obviously far more than mere resuscitation, but it wasn't anything less either.
I don't think the Resurrection was a Resuscitation Plus event. I don't know why the tomb was empty. It's possible that the bones were consumed to dust and ash by whatever process occurred, but maybe they weren't. It's possible that the tomb was merely empty of what it was expected to hold. What matters is the encounter with the living Christ; the bones are irrelevant.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Sorry to post twice in succession, but ...
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If Paul contradicts the gospels, I'd say "too bad for Paul." The Gospels were written after Paul, indicating where the Church was at the time they were written. If they had moved on from Paul's ressurectionology, then Paul's doctrine is old news, and the Gospels trump it.
What I find bizarre about your stance is this: it would normally be assumed that people who witnessed an event would give the more reliable account of what went on (thus giving precedence to Paul, as being closer to the apostles). Of course, it's possible that they wouldn't fully understand what they saw, and that someone coming later, with more developed thinking and perhaps, in some cases, a better scientific understanding, would be able to better understand and explain what the witnesses experienced. But here's the thing: your stance seems to draw a line in the sand. Anything before that line wasn't understood properly and anything after that line can't be right because ... well it just can't. I call that having your cake and eating it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I do not know what will happen to people whose atoms have been scattered. But Jesus' atoms weren't scattered; he was dead less than 48 hours. So it's rather irrelevant.
Is it? Jesus' resurrection was a one off?
I thought his resurrection was a blue-print for ours?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Not at all - a thread on 1 Cor 15 has been done before in Kerygmania.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I don't believe that the Resurrection had anything to do with the dead body of Jesus, but I think Zach does.
As do I. The tomb was empty.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
What I find bizarre about your stance is this: it would normally be assumed that people who witnessed an event would give the more reliable account of what went on (thus giving precedence to Paul, as being closer to the apostles).
Paul didn't witness the resurrection. This is bizarre.
quote:
your stance seems to draw a line in the sand. Anything before that line wasn't understood properly and anything after that line can't be right because ... well it just can't. I call that having your cake and eating it.
Are you speaking to me? I said anything after some line can't be right?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is it? Jesus' resurrection was a one off?
I thought his resurrection was a blue-print for ours?
No, and yes. It has to do with the presence of the dead body. I thought I made that clear, but if not I apologize.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Not at all - a thread on 1 Cor 15 has been done before in Kerygmania.
The only reason you believe there is a contradiction is because you have decided beforehand that there is one. It's entirely relevant to the thread.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
What I find bizarre about your stance is this: it would normally be assumed that people who witnessed an event would give the more reliable account of what went on (thus giving precedence to Paul, as being closer to the apostles).
Paul didn't witness the resurrection. This is bizarre.
I know Paul didn't witness the Resurrection (in fact nobody witnessed the actual moment of Resurrection). You said that his letters pre-dated the gospels, and my point was that he was closer to those who witnessed the events at the first Easter. He worked alongside the apostles. quote:
quote:
your stance seems to draw a line in the sand. Anything before that line wasn't understood properly and anything after that line can't be right because ... well it just can't. I call that having your cake and eating it.
Are you speaking to me? I said anything after some line can't be right?
Yes, I was talking to you. I understand that, as a member of the Orthodox Church, you take the view that no new doctrine - even (am I right?) no new understanding of doctrine - can be formed after the Great Schism. So what I find bizarre is your saying that, if Paul and the gospels differ, the gospels have the edge, because they're later (even though, as someone else has pointed out, the Church included both in the canon); but then you would presumably say that anything before 1054 has the edge over anything after 1054, because it's earlier. So it's as though our understanding of Christ reached its apogee in the middle of the 11th century and we are then tied to that forever, or at least until the Second Coming.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Paul didn't write the gospels. he wrote BEFORE the gospels were written.
But the Gospels WERE written, and they ARE part of our Scripture. And they contain the empty tomb. The fact that Paul does not is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion here
Paul is entirely relevant here because his theology of the risen body contradicts that of the gospels.
You are assuming that scripture is consistent. it isn't. That is part of the revelation we have - it doesn't tell us what to believe. it teases us to work out for ourselves.
Then please demonstrate how it contradicts?
Tangent - of you really want to know, open a new thread.
Nicely avoided. You can't. I win by default.
Not at all - a thread on 1 Cor 15 has been done before in Kerygmania.
The only reason you believe there is a contradiction is because you have decided beforehand that there is one. It's entirely relevant to the thread.
Lots of scholars see two kinds of belief going on - Pauline and the gospels (and Mark has a line all of his own as there are no res. appearances.
So it is not me making up my mind beforehand.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Could I explain the apostles' teaching on the hypothesis that Jesus wasn't raised? Sure. Could I trust it? No. Because my trust isn't in St Peter's or St Thomas's transcendental experiences, and they never intended that it should be - they called people to trust not in their personal mystical insights, but in the risen Lord. It might be possible to construct a religion based on the premise that a factually mistaken view of the resurrection led to profound spiritual insights, but that religion would be conceptually different from the one traditionally known as Christianity.
I see what your saying , but this could well be why our traditional Christianity is on the way out . Without wanting to put too fine a point on it , how can we really expect 21st Century minds to fall for the Resurrection in the way that our superstition-ridden ancestors did ?
Only this morning I heard on the news that Pentecostal Christianity is enjoying a boom in the UK , while traditional Christianity continues to decline.
Do those attending charismatic healing worship worry about Jesus' bones , the authenticity of the Resurrection, or who wrote what/when in the Bible ? I very much doubt it .
Whilst the origins of Christianity are indeed a fascinating and irresistible source of mystery , they have also, alas, contributed to terrible tensions and deadly consequences which , as is evident in this thread , still rumble on today.
Coming back to the OP , my opinion is that Christianity would not be destroyed if the earthly remains of Jesus were identified . It might even make the next 2000 yrs rather less angst-ridden than the last for those wishing to pursue it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
So could you give an example of this rather than dismissing it?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
So could you give an example of this rather than dismissing it?
You've just given one regarding the resurrection and the Apostle and the Gospels.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I see what your saying , but this could well be why our traditional Christianity is on the way out . Without wanting to put too fine a point on it , how can we really expect 21st Century minds to fall for the Resurrection in the way that our superstition-ridden ancestors did ?
Ancient minds were every bit as good as 21st Century ones, I submit. They knew as well as we do that dead people don't rise. Indeed Acts records the Athenians scoffing at it. It was just as wacky then as it is now.
quote:
Only this morning I heard on the news that Pentecostal Christianity is enjoying a boom in the UK , while traditional Christianity continues to decline.
Do those attending charismatic healing worship worry about Jesus' bones , the authenticity of the Resurrection, or who wrote what/when in the Bible ? I very much doubt it .
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I am very sure that most charismatics and Pentecostals do indeed reckon that the tomb was empty and the Resurrection authentic and. I am incredibly surprised that you think that they don't.
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I see what your saying , but this could well be why our traditional Christianity is on the way out . Without wanting to put too fine a point on it , how can we really expect 21st Century minds to fall for the Resurrection in the way that our superstition-ridden ancestors did ?
You forgot to add that our "ancestors" were irremediably stupid. For mine, I'm so glad to be living in the 21st Century, otherwise I wouldn't know how clever I was.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I know Paul didn't witness the Resurrection (in fact nobody witnessed the actual moment of Resurrection). You said that his letters pre-dated the gospels, and my point was that he was closer to those who witnessed the events at the first Easter. He worked alongside the apostles.
He also explicitly said he didn't get his gospel from the apostles. Anyway saying "Paul didn't mention an empty tomb" is an argument from silence anyway.
quote:
Yes, I was talking to you. I understand that, as a member of the Orthodox Church, you take the view that no new doctrine - even (am I right?) no new understanding of doctrine - can be formed after the Great Schism.
I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "new understanding of doctrine." What would that look like?
You're wrong about the Great Schism -- hesychasm postdates 1054.
Part of the reason the OC is so frozen in time is the one-two punch of the Ottomans and the Soviets. The church has been in hunker-down mode since 1453 and not a lot of new anything has gotten done. It's a shame, and some people have spoken out about it (including at least one saint), but it's the situation on the ground at the moment.
Regarding Paul and the Gospels -- The church was still hammering things basic doctrines in the first century. We see this in the NT itself -- can gentiles be Christians? Under what circumstances?
We're no longer still hammering out things of such a basic level.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Hi All,
Just for my satisfaction, it has been stated several times that Paul's writings predated the gospels.
Can anyone verify this?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hi All,
Just for my satisfaction, it has been stated several times that Paul's writings predated the gospels.
Can anyone verify this?
It's another of those non sequitur arguments, I'm afraid. This oarticular one goes something like.... The Gospels mention the destruction of the Temple therefore they must have been written after AD 70, whereas the Apostle doesn't mention it. Even a young child could spot the holes in this kind of reasoning.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I know Paul didn't witness the Resurrection (in fact nobody witnessed the actual moment of Resurrection). You said that his letters pre-dated the gospels, and my point was that he was closer to those who witnessed the events at the first Easter. He worked alongside the apostles.
He also explicitly said he didn't get his gospel from the apostles. Anyway saying "Paul didn't mention an empty tomb" is an argument from silence anyway.
It's not an argument I've used. Presumably when Paul said he didn't get his gospel from the Apostles, he meant he got it direct from his encounter with the risen Christ on the Damascus road. Nevertheless, I assume his understanding of what actually happened on the first Easter Day probably was derived from the Apostles and other key witnesses, such as the two Marys. quote:
You're wrong about the Great Schism -- hesychasm postdates 1054.
Part of the reason the OC is so frozen in time is the one-two punch of the Ottomans and the Soviets. The church has been in hunker-down mode since 1453 and not a lot of new anything has gotten done. It's a shame, and some people have spoken out about it (including at least one saint), but it's the situation on the ground at the moment.
Thanks, this is helpful. I had previously thought that being frozen in time was an intrinsic element of Orthodoxy.
I am also grateful for the introduction to hesychasm, but Wikipedia suggests that its roots go back well before 1054. I'd heard of the Jesus prayer before, but didn't fully understand the significance.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
Even those people who argue that the gospels pre-date the fall of the Temple tend to argue that (at least most of) the Epistles are earlier than the Gospels.Some argue that they come at about the same time. Very many would accept that the material from which the gospels were created already existed in substantially the form that we are familiar with at the time the Epistles came into being.
I do agree that a facile link to the destruction of the Temple is a weak basis for argument, and it depends on being able to establish that the Gospel writers were giving these words to Jesus in the light of an actual destruction. There is at least an arguable case for saying (whether they are the words of Jesus, or the words of the evangelists), that they are simply a combination of a straightforward reading of current affairs cast into the apocalyptic language of Daniel.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
So could you give an example of this rather than dismissing it?
You've just given one regarding the resurrection and the Apostle and the Gospels.
I asked you to give an example of modern scholarship - not of one of my posts.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hi All,
Just for my satisfaction, it has been stated several times that Paul's writings predated the gospels.
Can anyone verify this?
I won't repeat it here but there is a long list of dates given by me and others in Kerygmania about the dating of the epistles.
The list I gave, based on J A T Robinson, is the most conservative.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Anyway saying "Paul didn't mention an empty tomb" is an argument from silence anyway.
I agree about being wary of an an argument from silence but if the empty tomb is such a big deal, you'd have thought he would have mentioned, not least because it contradicts his view of resurrection in 1 Cor 15 where the resurrection body is not the same as the body that died.
[ 14. October 2013, 09:18: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
The following list may be of interest.
Jengie
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Well, for Paul in particular the empty tomb would not be a big deal. His authority rests on his encounter with the living Christ and so (maybe unconsciously) he downplays the physical details of the Resurrection event. This doesn't prove either way that the tomb was or wasn't empty, merely that the emptiness of the tomb was regarded (by him) as a matter of minor interest.
Why was the stone rolled back? If Christ could appear bodily in a locked room, and appear and disappear to those journeying to Emmaus, there was no need for the stone to be rolled back. It's being rolled back was a sign; the empty tomb was a sign. Let's not get so hung up on the signs that we emphasise their importance above that of what is signified. If the idea that the tomb was completely empty could be somehow proved to be erroneous that would still not mean that Christ was not truly risen. (I'm reminded of 'Under me' in The Silver Chair.)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
While I am not sure that whether or not I otherwise agree with Ad Orientem, I did think in this exchange…
quote:
Originally posted by Leo quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The reasoning is always faulty. It goes along the lines of "This and that therefore...must etc." They're always complete non sequiturs. This is why modern scholarship isn't worth shit.
So could you give an example of this rather than dismissing it?
…that you were asking for an example of faulty reasoning, rather than specifically one from modern scholarship. I dare say Ad Orientem will reply further in due course.
In the meantime here is Uta Ranke-Heinemann quoted on this web site quote:
The empty tomb on Easter Sunday morning is a legend. This is shown by the simple fact that the apostle Paul, the most crucial preacher of Christ's resurrection, and the earliest New Testament writer besides, says nothing about it. As far as Paul is concerned, it doesn't exist. Thus it means nothing to him, that is, an empty tomb has no significance for the truth of the resurrection, which he so emphatically proclaims. Granted, for Paul all Christianity depends upon the resurrection of Christ - "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1Cor 15:14). But in Paul's view, that has nothing to do with an empty tomb. He manifestly has no idea of any such thing. If Paul had ever heard of the empty tomb, he would have never passed over it in silence. Since he gathers together and cites all evidence for Jesus' resurrection that has been handed down to him (1 Corinthians 15), he certainly would have found the empty tomb worth mentioning. That he doesn't proves that it never existed and hence the accounts of it must not have arisen until later.
(The same website also cites Norman Perrin, D.H. van Daalen, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, David Friedman, and Hans Grass as advancing a similar argument - so she is not alone!)
IMO if you can argue on other grounds that the tomb was not empty, then you could say that also explains why St Paul does not mention it. OTOH there could be many other reasons for his silence. If I were to tell you that I had seen Ad Orientem (for the sake of argument) at 2.15 p.m. on a bus in Penzance, then you would consider it redundant of me to mention that he had not been on the 1.30 train from Kings Cross to Aberdeen.
So Paul's failure to mention the empty tomb could be e.g. because he considers the other testimony he brings to be so weighty that it needs no further confirmation. It could be that having advanced that testimony, there is no point in mentioning that the tomb was empty as well. It could be that he simply could not imagine that anyone within his milieu could believe that his argument about the resurrection was consistent with the tomb still being occupied. He no more expected that line of reasoning than I would expect you to say that Ad Orientem may have been spiritually on the train, but his physical body was none the less on the bus. (In a rather crude stereotypical form this is, AIUI, essentially the argument that N T Wright makes about Paul and the empty tomb.)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Anyway saying "Paul didn't mention an empty tomb" is an argument from silence anyway.
I agree about being wary of an an argument from silence but if the empty tomb is such a big deal, you'd have thought he would have mentioned, not least because it contradicts his view of resurrection in 1 Cor 15 where the resurrection body is not the same as the body that died.
You look for problems that aren't there. Again, "you would have thought etc" is a flimsy argument. No one said that the resurrection body is identical to the pre-resurrection body, only that it is the same body undergone some sort of transformation (or "transfigured" as on Mount Tabor, giving Peter and John a glimpse of his resurrection glory), which does not contradict the Apostle.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Anyway saying "Paul didn't mention an empty tomb" is an argument from silence anyway.
I agree about being wary of an an argument from silence but if the empty tomb is such a big deal, you'd have thought he would have mentioned, not least because it contradicts his view of resurrection in 1 Cor 15 where the resurrection body is not the same as the body that died.
And this is where I would suggest that you might be misreading Paul, or at least thinking he is answering questions which he is not in fact addressing. If he well knew that the tomb was empty, indeed, if for him the idea of the resurrection of Christ was not meaningful unless the tomb had been empty (see my post above), then we have to adapt our understanding of the resurrection to accommodate that.
Here's one suggestion from N.T. Wright again on "spiritual" and "physical" bodies in 1 Cor 15 quote:
Paul’s language here, using Greek adjectives ending in –ikos, is not about the substance of which the body is composed, but about the driving force that animates it. It’s the difference between, on the one hand, a ship made of steel or timber, and a ship powered by sail or steam. For Paul, the psyche is the breath of life, the vital spark, the thing that animates the body in the present life. The pneuma is the thing that animates the resurrection body.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The following list may be of interest.
Jengie
Yes a good summary with all the Pauline epistles having been written BEFORE the first gospel(Mark). (Assuming, as most do, though I am not fully convinced, that the pastorals are pseudo-Pauline.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In the meantime here is Uta Ranke-Heinemann quoted on this web site quote:
The empty tomb on Easter Sunday morning is a legend. This is shown by the simple fact that the apostle Paul, the most crucial preacher of Christ's resurrection, and the earliest New Testament writer besides, says nothing about it. As far as Paul is concerned, it doesn't exist. Thus it means nothing to him, that is, an empty tomb has no significance for the truth of the resurrection, which he so emphatically proclaims. Granted, for Paul all Christianity depends upon the resurrection of Christ - "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1Cor 15:14). But in Paul's view, that has nothing to do with an empty tomb. He manifestly has no idea of any such thing. If Paul had ever heard of the empty tomb, he would have never passed over it in silence. Since he gathers together and cites all evidence for Jesus' resurrection that has been handed down to him (1 Corinthians 15), he certainly would have found the empty tomb worth mentioning. That he doesn't proves that it never existed and hence the accounts of it must not have arisen until later.
(The same website also cites Norman Perrin, D.H. van Daalen, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, David Friedman, and Hans Grass as advancing a similar argument - so she is not alone!)
I haven't heard of the people you mention at the end, apart from Perrin.
Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a bit far out - not someone whose scholarship I'd accept as anything other than tilting at windmills - he things Jesus wasn't divine nor the scriptures as authoritative. She also declared herself to have departed from traditional Xianity.
On the other hand, N T Wright is conservative, though he has done some good work in rehabilitating Paul's essential Jewishness. Re- what animates and things ending in ikos, I don't think he pays sufficient attention to the paert where we are told that flesh and blood cannot inherit.... and that was is sown is different from what is raised.
As someone pointed out earlier, if the resurrection body is based on the dead body, then are we to assume cremated ashes and long-dead and decayed bodies reconstituting themselves? (I think this view was based on a literal reading of Ezekiel's dry bones.)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Believing in the resurrection of Christ without believing in an empty tomb is a damn neat trick.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
In the meantime here is Uta Ranke-Heinemann quoted on this web site quote:
The empty tomb on Easter Sunday morning is a legend. This is shown by the simple fact that the apostle Paul, the most crucial preacher of Christ's resurrection, and the earliest New Testament writer besides, says nothing about it. As far as Paul is concerned, it doesn't exist. Thus it means nothing to him, that is, an empty tomb has no significance for the truth of the resurrection, which he so emphatically proclaims. Granted, for Paul all Christianity depends upon the resurrection of Christ - "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1Cor 15:14). But in Paul's view, that has nothing to do with an empty tomb. He manifestly has no idea of any such thing. If Paul had ever heard of the empty tomb, he would have never passed over it in silence. Since he gathers together and cites all evidence for Jesus' resurrection that has been handed down to him (1 Corinthians 15), he certainly would have found the empty tomb worth mentioning. That he doesn't proves that it never existed and hence the accounts of it must not have arisen until later.
(The same website also cites Norman Perrin, D.H. van Daalen, Dan Barker, Richard Carrier, David Friedman, and Hans Grass as advancing a similar argument - so she is not alone!)
I haven't heard of the people you mention at the end, apart from Perrin.
Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a bit far out - not someone whose scholarship I'd accept as anything other than tilting at windmills - he things Jesus wasn't divine nor the scriptures as authoritative. She also declared herself to have departed from traditional Xianity.
On the other hand, N T Wright is conservative, though he has done some good work in rehabilitating Paul's essential Jewishness. Re- what animates and things ending in ikos, I don't think he pays sufficient attention to the paert where we are told that flesh and blood cannot inherit.... and that was is sown is different from what is raised.
As someone pointed out earlier, if the resurrection body is based on the dead body, then are we to assume cremated ashes and long-dead and decayed bodies reconstituting themselves? (I think this view was based on a literal reading of Ezekiel's dry bones.)
Care to address my post above because I believe it deal with this? You are looking for problems where there are none.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
orfeo: Believing in the resurrection of Christ without believing in an empty tomb is a damn neat trick.
Like others on this thread have said, in theory He could have died on the Cross, ressurrected, and died again of natural causes later.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I don't think 'transfiguration' and 'transformation' are the same thing - though there are many who see the mt. Tabor story as a resurrection narrative anachronistically thrown back into the middle of the synoptics.
As to the difference between the corpse of the historical Jesus (which might have decayed in a lime pit as did most bodies after crucifixion), and the risen Christ of faith, I summarise below, drawing on Hick and Vardy:
In 'Death and Eternal life,' John Hick argues that in certain circumstances the dead can exist after death. If an exact replica of them were to appear complete with memories and characteristics. As God is all powerful this recreation of the dead is totally possible although death can destroy us God can recreate us. He bases this on 1 Corinthians 15 verse 35-44
Imagine a computer and CD Roms – each CD Rom is a person who a great number of ‘experiences’ and the hard drive is God. At death, a person’s body is destroyed. In the analogy, a CD Rom is destroyed – but it is backed up in the hard drive – the mind of God – and can be recreated.– it saved on its hard drive. God could produce an exact ‘reprint’ using every piece of information about us. This new ‘us’ would be an exact copy, using new materials. Only one copy is made in order to preserve the identity of the original.
(Hick believes that the body and soul are one, inseparable. Therefore he does not think that the soul can exist separate to the body after death. However, he still believes in Life after Death. This is in the form of resurrection. Hicks description of resurrection would therefore be There being a replica or duplicate of the person made by God in heaven, after the persons life on Earth has ended. It is the same person, as they have the same memory and emotion etc.)
Peter Vardy claims that this is in line with traditional Christian teaching. St Paul talks about a transformed body. (This view is compatible with Hick’s view, which incorporates resurrection. “When buried it is a physical body; when raised it will be a spiritual body. There is of course a physical body, so there has to be a spiritual body.” – 1 Corinthians 15:35-44. Life after death will be as a spiritual body. This is because, unlike its earthly form as the seed, is from the plant into which it grows. They keep their personal identity, but can achieve eternal life in a bodily form.)
: In modern Christian thought, a person is usually regarded as a psycho-physical unity. Thus, in order to maintain a belief in the existence of heaven and hell, Hick's replica theory is necessary to the Christian doctrine of life after death. Indeed, when one examines the biblical accounts of the afterlife, this line of thought runs parallel to the Christian conception of heaven and the 'resurrected body.' For example, Hick describes the replica body of the deceased as one that is in good health, explaining the possibility of growing younger to the optimum age, becoming more like God and evolving in a life of 'soul making.' This portrays the image of a new 'spiritual' body, exactly as St Paul describes in his first letter to the church in Corinth.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Believing in the resurrection of Christ without believing in an empty tomb is a damn neat trick.
The whole empty tomb story is full of midrash:
[deleted potentially copyright material listed under "Mishrash elements" here]
[ 14. October 2013, 17:38: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Believing in the resurrection of Christ without believing in an empty tomb is a damn neat trick.
The whole empty tomb story is full of midrash:<snipped list>
Some of the elements in the list seem far-fetched tome, though that is clearly a matter of judgement. But separately, I am not sure that there is any literary mechanism for distinguishing between circumstances which someone chooses to report/emphasise because they resonate with tradition, and those which are inserted ex post facto in order to make something look as though it resonates with tradition.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
Surely what matters in a Resurrection is that the person is alive? You are agruing that resurrection must include some kind of resuscitation of the body - personally, I find this utterly ridiculous. People's "real" (earthly) bodies are finite. If eternal life is going to be real, how can it be in an earthly body?
Orfeo - as for it being a 'neat trick' - are you suggesting that there is some kind of intellectual dishonesty involved?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Believing in the resurrection of Christ without believing in an empty tomb is a damn neat trick.
The whole empty tomb story is full of midrash:
[deleted potentially copyright material]
OK, we've got the footnotes of your article. Now for the exegesis.
[ 14. October 2013, 17:40: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
Surely what matters in a Resurrection is that the person is alive? You are agruing that resurrection must include some kind of resuscitation of the body - personally, I find this utterly ridiculous. People's "real" (earthly) bodies are finite. If eternal life is going to be real, how can it be in an earthly body?
Orfeo - as for it being a 'neat trick' - are you suggesting that there is some kind of intellectual dishonesty involved?
It is precisely because the resurrection was "real" that some of us emphasize the resuscitation aspect. That it is ridiculous is the whole point- it is only possible because of God's grace, and no other reason at all.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
Disagree - Paul often writes of a 'new creation' - indeed, in the orthodox view this seems to apply to every blade of grass, not just to human beings.
The resurrection of Christ is the firstfruits of such a new creation.
As for the corpse, Paul said that 'The old order has gone.'
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
Surely what matters in a Resurrection is that the person is alive? You are agruing that resurrection must include some kind of resuscitation of the body - personally, I find this utterly ridiculous. People's "real" (earthly) bodies are finite. If eternal life is going to be real, how can it be in an earthly body?
Yes, to the Greek, as the Apostle says, this is ridiculous. You are not the first or the last person to think that but that we will physically rise from the dead transfigured by a cloak of immortality is clearly taught both in the Gospels and the Epistles. The same for the new heaven and new earth, which is a transfiguring.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
OK, we've got the footnotes of your article. Now for the exegesis.
They were not footnotes top any article.
Not sure it needs any - read the texts. I think they are self-explanatory.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
Disagree - Paul often writes of a 'new creation' - indeed, in the orthodox view this seems to apply to every blade of grass, not just to human beings.
The resurrection of Christ is the firstfruits of such a new creation.
As for the corpse, Paul said that 'The old order has gone.'
I would say the same for the new heaven and new earth as I would the resurrection, that it is the old transfigured.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I haven't heard of the people you mention at the end, apart from Perrin.
Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a bit far out - not someone whose scholarship I'd accept as anything other than tilting at windmills - he things Jesus wasn't divine nor the scriptures as authoritative. She also declared herself to have departed from traditional Xianity.
On the other hand, N T Wright is conservative, though he has done some good work in rehabilitating Paul's essential Jewishness. Re- what animates and things ending in ikos, I don't think he pays sufficient attention to the paert where we are told that flesh and blood cannot inherit.... and that was is sown is different from what is raised.
As someone pointed out earlier, if the resurrection body is based on the dead body, then are we to assume cremated ashes and long-dead and decayed bodies reconstituting themselves? (I think this view was based on a literal reading of Ezekiel's dry bones.)
Yes, I hadn't heard of Uta Ranke-Heinemann, it's just that the quotation from her was an easily accessible example to post in response to the question you posed, the other names merely indicate that in that respect at least she is not so unusual.
I'm not sure what your ad hominem statement that NT Wright is conservative is intended to contribute to the debate, it seems to me to be as entirely irrelevant to the weight of his argument as the (probably equally well-known fact) that he has a beard. The word 'but' in your assessment suggests you think it detracts from his ability as a scholar somehow. ("he's conservative… but … he has done some good work") I think he would probably say that as far as rehabilitating Paul's Jewishness is concerned, he is very much following in the footsteps of others notably Sanders, and also Vermes.
Since his article is focussed on the wider question of Paul's anthropology, it doesn't specifically address detailed exegesis of 1 Cor 15, though I doubt he has overlooked 1 Cor 15.50. Indeed, now I look for it here is another article: quote:
(l Cor. 15:50-54) Here Paul states clearly and emphatically his belief in a body that is to be changed, not abandoned. The present physicality—in all its transience, its decay, and its subjection to weakness, sickness, and death—is not to go on forever, that is what Paul means by saying “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The term “flesh” (sarx) is seldom if ever for Paul a merely neutral description of physicality; almost always it carries some hint both of the corruptibility and of the rebelliousness of present human existence. What is required for God’s future state of affairs is what we might call a “noncorruptible physicality”: the dead will be raised “imperishable” and we—that is, those who are left alive until the great day—will be “changed” (1 Cor. 15:52). As the parallel with 2 Corinthians 5 makes clear, Paul envisage the present physical body “putting on” the new body as a new mode of physicality over and above what we presently know. It is not the mere resuscitation of a corpse, coming back into the same mode of physicality it had before, but equally and emphatically it is not disembodiment. And if this is what Paul believes about the resurrection body of Christians, we may assume, since his argument works in both directions, that this was his view of the resurrection of Jesus as well.
Incidentally he then goes on to deal with the suggestion that in the earlier verses Paul… quote:
refers to resurrection existence in terms of what we would have to call a “nonphysical” body, in other words, a life beyond the grave that left the grave full, not empty—a view that the NRSV’s mistranslation of psychikos in verses 44 and 46 as “physical” has doubtless encouraged [people] to hold. This, as is now regularly argued by a good many commentators, and almost as regularly admitted even by those who think Paul’s belief was false, is to allow into the argument a hellenistic worldview that is totally out of place in this most Jewish of chapters.
As far as the mystery of the resurrection of those long dead is concerned, I confess I don't know how it will be accomplished, but I am confident that the God whose word brought into being all that is, and who raised Jesus from the dead can accomplish that also.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not sure it needs any - read the texts. I think they are self-explanatory.
Far from it. Some of them are far-fetched, but whether they are far fetched or not the direction of flow is not established. Is it we'll create these things to make a literary/theological connection with other scriptures, or is it we'll highlight these things which happened because we believe how this event resonates with other scriptures? And what is the basis for your assertion that it is the former rather than the latter?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I'm not sure what your ad hominem statement that NT Wright is conservative is intended to contribute to the debate, it seems to me to be as entirely irrelevant to the weight of his argument as the (probably equally well-known fact) that he has a beard. The word 'but' in your assessment suggests you think it detracts from his ability as a scholar somehow. ("he's conservative… but … he has done some good work") I think he would probably say that as far as rehabilitating Paul's Jewishness is concerned, he is very much following in the footsteps of others notably Sanders, and also Vermes.
What Wright HAS done is to popularise Sanders. (Not sure about (Vermes.) I am highly suspicious of Wright - he seems to churn out loads of books every year, mostly with 'for everyone' in the title. Then again, it is good that he can write in a way that is accessible to 'the educated layman'
However, stuff of his that i have read, before i gave up, seems all to be geared at proving his conservative point of view. Then again, he is mostly criticised for his 'new perspective on Paul' so i should desist on criticising him if that ranks me among the critics on that score.
But i value the quotations you have included since they make me think again about issues that I have considered long since done and dusted.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not sure it needs any - read the texts. I think they are self-explanatory.
Far from it. Some of them are far-fetched, but whether they are far fetched or not the direction of flow is not established. Is it we'll create these things to make a literary/theological connection with other scriptures, or is it we'll highlight these things which happened because we believe how this event resonates with other scriptures? And what is the basis for your assertion that it is the former rather than the latter?
This is the age-old question. The same could be said for the way in which Christians appropriated trito-Isaiah's suffering servant passage.
Did they write up the passion narratives by reading isaiah as a prophecy?
Of did they reflect on the Passion and see parallels in Isaiah which resonated?
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This is the age-old question. The same could be said for the way in which Christians appropriated trito-Isaiah's suffering servant passage.
Did they write up the passion narratives by reading isaiah as a prophecy?
Of did they reflect on the Passion and see parallels in Isaiah which resonated?
Yes, I know that's the question. I just posed it in my post you quoted. The reason for my posing it was that in the context of this discussion "If we found the bones of Jesus…" Orfeo argued that resurrection without empty tomb was an unlikely combination ("a neat trick"): quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Believing in the resurrection of Christ without believing in an empty tomb is a damn neat trick.
The whole empty tomb story is full of midrash<snip>
I took your reply to be a response countering his post. I pointed out that just saying it was midrash didn't counter his argument, since we couldn't be sure about what I have called direction of flow. You now appear to be agreeing with that - in which case introducing that list of possible midrashic elements is just a red herring and they don't advance the discussion at all since we don't know if they are read from an empty tomb, or an empty tomb is posited in order to introduce them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I am also grateful for the introduction to hesychasm, but Wikipedia suggests that its roots go back well before 1054. I'd heard of the Jesus prayer before, but didn't fully understand the significance.
I apologize for speaking loosely. Hesychasm goes way back, but the final decisions about it were made post-1054. Like the way that the roots of Trinitarianism go back well before the Creed, and the roots of the biblical canon go back well before Trent. But the decisions were finalized and promulgated at those particular points in time.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
read the texts. I think they are self-explanatory.
This is exactly what the fundamentalist says about his exegesis of scripture. The texts are never enough.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You are not the first or the last person to think that but that we will physically rise from the dead transfigured by a cloak of immortality is clearly taught both in the Gospels and the Epistles. The same for the new heaven and new earth, which is a transfiguring.
But was does "transfigured" mean? And does it exclude the possibility that, as the old body is transfigured into the new one, the bones are left behind? I think that the promise is that we will be recognisably ourselves, but immortal - no longer needing to eat, or drink, and 'neither marry nor given in marriage' I assume also implies no fleshly lust. So the same, but not the same. Recognisably ourselves (although it appears the risen Jesus wasn't instantly recognisable) and yet not ourselves. I'm not sayng that I disbelieve the empty tomb; I'm saying that a non-empty tomb is not incompatible with eternal life in a transfigured body. I'm not saying God couldn't do anything - I'm saying S/He could do it with or without the corpse. What is ridiculous, in my view, is to assume that God can't give someone a transfigured body without making use of the old body.
[ 14. October 2013, 18:29: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Because it wouldn't be the same person but a replica.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
But was does "transfigured" mean? And does it exclude the possibility that, as the old body is transfigured into the new one, the bones are left behind?
This seems to be like asking if I can make a piece of paper into a paper airplane, and the original paper be left behind. Or make a log into a pile of charcoal and still have the original log. If one thing is transformed into another, it means THAT THING is transformed. If you still have that thing left over, it wasn't transformed.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
This brings us back to the question of whether disabled people will have their impairments in Heaven - and will that depend on whether the impairments were genetic or acquired? Will people who die at the age of 8 or 80, be 8 or 80 forever? Will I have my crap knees forever? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Clearly if individual minds and souls are to survive death they must do so in bodies that correspond to the individual's body when alive, but I personally feel it's nit-picking to insist that that heavenly body is actually and literally made up out of the old body when all you need is the DNA and some elemental soup.
I guess we're not going to reach a resolution on this. I find it interesting that it's the most hard-line traditionalists who say that their faith would be destroyed if the bones were found. One of my favourite bits of Lewis is in That Hideous Strength when Mark(?) is being tortured and mocked by those trying to convince him that his faith is false - he comes to the point of realising that it doesn't matter so much. Even if there is no God and death is the end, there is still no better light to live by. That's how I feel.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mousethief: This seems to be like asking if I can make a piece of paper into a paper airplane, and the original paper be left behind.
I'm sure an Almighty God can.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
One of my favourite bits of Lewis is in That Hideous Strength when Mark(?) is being tortured and mocked by those trying to convince him that his faith is false - he comes to the point of realising that it doesn't matter so much. Even if there is no God and death is the end, there is still no better light to live by. That's how I feel.
You don't seem to have gotten the point of the book very well, then. Which is bizarre, because it's probably one of the most ham-fisted books I've ever read in my days.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
One of my favourite bits of Lewis is in That Hideous Strength when Mark(?) is being tortured and mocked by those trying to convince him that his faith is false - he comes to the point of realising that it doesn't matter so much. Even if there is no God and death is the end, there is still no better light to live by. That's how I feel.
You don't seem to have gotten the point of the book very well, then. Which is bizarre, because it's probably one of the most ham-fisted books I've ever read in my days.
Yes, of course Lewis's main point is that it is all real - and I think Lewis may have elsewhere trotted out the old line that you either have to buy the whole package or accept that Jesus was a madman. But Lewis is full of gems - and for me this is the brightest gem in what is, in most other respects, a bit of a dungheap of a book.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I regret that you should take that as a gem. For all the sentimental poetry we hear about the beatitudes these days, the Gospels show us the end of that ethic, apart from the grace of God.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I regret that you should take that as a gem. For all the sentimental poetry we hear about the beatitudes these days, the Gospels show us the end of that ethic, apart from the grace of God.
All what sentimental poetry we hear about the beatitudes these days? Contemporary sentimental poetry about the beatitudes? Details, please.
And the end of the ethic is what? Crucifixion?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And the end of the ethic is what? Crucifixion?
Yes. Give Pilate and the scribes and Pharisees some credit-- they were following their own worthwhile ethic.
quote:
All what sentimental poetry we hear about the beatitudes these days? Contemporary sentimental poetry about the beatitudes? Details, please.
I don't mean poetry in any formal sense. For many people, the beatitudes are practically the only worthwhile thing Jesus said.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not sure how that is compatible with the traditional Christian view, but there you go. Thanks for replying. Clearly such a resurrection, I would argue, is no resurrection at all just, as you call it, an exact copy, a fake or whatever you want to call it. Again, I would argue, this is not what the Apostle is saying.
It seems to me that this is all about people playing with what the word 'resurrection' is capable of meaning.
Obviously what's critical is what the original Greek word means, not what the English word now means. But I do find it very odd that people play around with the English word without justifying what they're doing on the grounds of what the Greek one meant, and just act as if we're all happy that what they're talking about still qualifies as a 'resurrection' in English.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Orfeo - as for it being a 'neat trick' - are you suggesting that there is some kind of intellectual dishonesty involved?
Not dishonesty, no, but it requires having a different definition of 'resurrection' than the one ordinarily used. And I was primarily referring to St Paul believing such a thing as asserted.
I follow BroJames in having viewed 'physical' and 'spiritual' bodies as having meant something about the qualities of the body rather than meaning two different bodies. Because I generally find that solution to the text more plausible than taking the view that St Paul uses the word 'resurrection' to mean something like 'replacement' - unless someone can show me that (1) the Greek word 'resurrection' is capable of that meaning, and (2) that there weren't other perfectly ordinary Greek words for 'replacement' that Paul would use when he meant 'replacement'.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And the end of the ethic is what? Crucifixion?
Yes. Give Pilate and the scribes and Pharisees some credit-- they weree following their own worthwhile ethic.
Maybe, but it was hardly the ethic of the beatitudes.
quote:
quote:
All what sentimental poetry we hear about the beatitudes these days? Contemporary sentimental poetry about the beatitudes? Details, please.
I don't mean poetry in any formal sense.
So not poetry at all then? Thought not. quote:
For many people, the beatitudes are practically the only worthwhile thing Jesus said.
Oh dear, so tiresome of people to be interested in what Jesus actually taught, rather than obscure - and ultimately irresolvable - arguments about what may or may not have happened in Palestine two thousand years ago. Although I'd question your assertion that the main focus is on the beatitudes - it's true that they are very quotable, but some of them are quite obscure and difficult. Plenty of other memorable bits for those who are so inclined.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Maybe, but it was hardly the ethic of the beatitudes.
Who cares? The end of all ethics is the same. The Pharisees would have been over the moon about this Jesus chap if he'd stuck with "Love thy neighbor."
quote:
So not poetry at all then? Thought not.
On the contrary. If you sum up all the talk of how beautiful and true the beatitudes are without any of the supernatural crap, that's all you've got. Terrible poetry, but not even the hint of real discipleship.
quote:
Oh dear, so tiresome of people to be interested in what Jesus actually taught, rather than obscure - and ultimately irresolvable - arguments about what may or may not have happened in Palestine two thousand years ago. Although I'd question your assertion that the main focus is on the beatitudes - it's true that they are very quotable, but some of them are quite obscure and difficult. Plenty of other memorable bits for those who are so inclined.
Indeed. Jesus doesn't just show us the way-- he is the way, and anyone that forgets it throws out the spirit for the sake of the dead letter.
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
[ 14. October 2013, 22:02: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Maybe, but it was hardly the ethic of the beatitudes.
Who cares? The end of all ethics is the same. The Pharisees would have been over the moon about this Jesus chap if he'd stuck with "Love thy neighbor.".... Jesus doesn't just show us the way-- he is the way, and anyone that forgets it throws out the spirit for the sake of the dead letter.
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
Pretty weird of him then, to spend most of his ministry spouting stuff which, according to you, is mostly sentimental, useless crap, apart from a few enigmatic statements about his own status. And, since it seems we're doing proof-texting now, I give you: quote:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
And I don't actually recall him saying anything about needing to believe his tomb was empty.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Is this really another either or thing? Or could it just be that the beatitutes really mean nothing without the resurrection (which includes the empty tomb)?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Is this really another either or thing? Or could it just be that the beatitutes really mean nothing without the resurrection (which includes the empty tomb)?
Just to expand a little: Isn't it the hope in the resurrection, that God loved us so much that he became flesh, died and rose again for our sake defeating death, sin and the devil, that moves us to love others as God loves us?
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
That sounds to me pretty much the same as what Zach said. First of all, the beatitudes clearly aren't meaningless, though you may choose to think they're invalid unless backed up by miraculous events.
So this is the backbone of traditional Christianity? "All that 'love your neighbour' stuff ain't worth shit unless I'm guaranteed to get something out of it in the end"?
Why does The Church insist so much on pontifical statements about Jesus rather than on what Jesus himself taught? Because the teachings of Church are very much take-it-or-leave-it, whereas the teachings of Jesus are things that people can actually have an opinion about.
It seems to me that the arguments about the empty tomb presented here have got it all backwards: Jesus must have been physically resurrected, otherwise our faith is vain. I would rather say: there is well-documented experience of people's encounters with the living Christ, and this continues to be true today, therefore something real must have happened at the first Easter.
eta: responding to the earlier comment, Ad Orientem, rather than the later one, which I agree is an improvement.
[ 15. October 2013, 05:54: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Please see the my addition above.
Isn't that kind of reducing Christianity to some kind of secular humanism? The beatitudes are a response to what God has done for us, they're not about earning brownie points and no one has suggested any such thing. Rather they are the proper response to what we believe and hope in and which is why they matter. Without the resurrection they don't even if they still remain "good".
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
But Jesus taught the beatitudes before the resurrection. Should he have prefaced them by saying: "You don't really need to bother with this too much unless I rise from the dead"? If Jesus was totally confident of rising from the dead, what are we to make of the agony in Gethsemane?
My view is that the Resurrection validates the Sonship of Jesus and that Sonship depends primarily not on the manner of his conception but on his living out of the Sonship through his life and teaching. So the Resurrection confirms the validity of Jesus' teaching, but that validity does not depend on the Resurrection.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What does the Apostle say regarding the resurrection?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
First of all, the beatitudes clearly aren't meaningless, though you may choose to think they're invalid unless backed up by miraculous events.
So this is the backbone of traditional Christianity? "All that 'love your neighbour' stuff ain't worth shit unless I'm guaranteed to get something out of it in the end"?
I think the answer to this comes from unpacking 'validity'/'invalidity' and recognising that there's a wide gulf between 'meaningless' and 'divine pronouncements'.
There are any number of things from other sources that I read, and maybe even base actions on, because I think they are good and useful. But I don't consider them divine instruction.
And plenty of people who don't even call themselves Christian find Jesus' teaching instructive. They just don't ascribe it to a divine being who rose from the dead. They ascribe it to a wise man.
[ 15. October 2013, 07:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Pretty weird of him then, to spend most of his ministry spouting stuff which, according to you, is mostly sentimental, useless crap, apart from a few enigmatic statements about his own status.
Foul. Zach didn't say the Beatitudes were sentimental, he said what people wrote about it was sentimental. And he didn't say they were crap, he was presenting the view of the sentimentalists in calling the supernatural claims of the Gospels crap.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Just to expand a little: Isn't it the hope in the resurrection, that God loved us so much that he became flesh, died and rose again for our sake defeating death, sin and the devil, that moves us to love others as God loves us?
Preach it, AO. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
You, Zach and Mousethief.
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
But Jesus taught the beatitudes before the resurrection. Should he have prefaced them by saying: "You don't really need to bother with this too much unless I rise from the dead"? If Jesus was totally confident of rising from the dead, what are we to make of the agony in Gethsemane?
He prophesied His sacrifice. That doesn't mean He found it easy. Here we see His two natures: He is the God-Man but this doesn't make His act at Calvary some kind of walk in the park.
quote:
So the Resurrection confirms the validity of Jesus' teaching, but that validity does not depend on the Resurrection.
Without the Resurrection, the Beatitudes are noble but hopeless. The Resurrection ushers in the amazing possibility of new life, because only by the power of the Holy Spirit can we truly live out the Beatitudes. Without the Resurrection, Jesus is just another dead guy and what He said about Himself was a delusion. Absolutely everything hinges on the Resurrection, because He is what He says He is.
So, yep, if they ever found His tomb (they won't - even if such a thing were true, it would of course be absolutely impossible to verify at this distance in time) it would be game over for me. In terms of identifying as a Christian, I mean. It doesn't mean I would stop trying to live a moral life in a universe grown cold and grey without the risen and glorified Christ. But it would mean that John Lennon's lyrics were drearily correct, that there really is no eternal life and no heaven.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
The sentimentalists fail because they stop at the beatitudes. They think loving their neighbors is enough.
"Master, all these have I observed from my youth. That's enough, isn't it?"
"No. Take up the cross, and follow me."
No ethical system can justify that "follow me." What makes Jesus so special that he can demand such a thing? We can see it in the resurrection.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Well said, and nice to agree for a change.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
You forgot to add that our "ancestors" were irremediably stupid. For mine, I'm so glad to be living in the 21st Century, otherwise I wouldn't know how clever I was.
Working as I do for a stone-mason , and appreciating the difficulties in carving and cutting stone (even with modern machinery), I know from tangible evidence that our ancestors were not stupid .
As for their response to religion , given the advances in scientific knowledge we take for granted, it is much more difficult to relate the then to the now . I mean where did all this 'raising from the dead' come from ? It doesn't seem to appear much in OT , yet when NT written it's the talk of the town .
It's not as though belief in life after death was anything new if the Egyptian mummies are anything to go by.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Zach82: The sentimentalists fail because they stop at the beatitudes. They think loving their neighbors is enough.
"Master, all these have I observed from my youth. That's enough, isn't it?"
"No. Take up the cross, and follow me."
Um, there's actually something in between those lines. It might even be an indication of what 'take up the cross' means.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Pretty weird of him then, to spend most of his ministry spouting stuff which, according to you, is mostly sentimental, useless crap, apart from a few enigmatic statements about his own status.
Foul. Zach didn't say the Beatitudes were sentimental, he said what people wrote about it was sentimental. And he didn't say they were crap, he was presenting the view of the sentimentalists in calling the supernatural claims of the Gospels crap.
Yes, he put the word 'crap' in the mouth of the sentimentalists, but it seems to me that what he objected to was their idea that the beatitudes have intrinsic merit. He stated that there was little to choose between the ethics of the beatitudes and the ethics (if such a word can be applied) of Pontius Pilate. At least Laurelin admits that the beatitudes have intrinsic value.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The sentimentalists fail because they stop at the beatitudes. They think loving their neighbors is enough.
I would argue that the story of the Good Samaritan is saying that loving one's neighbour is enough. It's the theologically messed-up Samaritan who is justified, not the impeccably orthodox (small o) priest and Levite. I would perhaps agree – again to take a point from Laurelin - that it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to live that out to the full. Ah, but how come the Samaritan managed it, then?
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Without the Resurrection, Jesus is just another dead guy and what He said about Himself was a delusion.
This is a very old argument, and I have to say I don't buy it. However, that is, perhaps for another thread, because I'm not arguing that the Resurrection didn't happen, I'm arguing that, even if bodily remains were found, this would not necessarily be proof that there was no Resurrection event, because Jesus' resurrected body (alive, warm, tangible, real) might not have been made out of his old body. In fact, I could also live with the idea that the Resurrection event was purely spiritual. What I'm interested in is an explanation that fits two sets of evidence:- People down the centuries have encountered the living Christ
- The early accounts, including the gospels and Paul's writing
So, on balance, incredible as it seems, I'm inclined to believe (this being a Tuesday) that the tomb was literally empty. However, if that turned out not to be the case, it would just involve a slight adjustment of our ideas about what exactly happened at the Resurrection – and since we can't be certain about that anyway, I don't see that it's a big deal.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by QLib:
I would argue that the story of the Good Samaritan is saying that loving one's neighbour is enough. It's the theologically messed-up Samaritan who is justified, not the impeccably orthodox (small o) priest and Levite. I would perhaps agree – again to take a point from Laurelin - that it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to live that out to the full. Ah, but how come the Samaritan managed it, then?
Yes, if you focus on only parable found in gospel, you might make that argument. If you look at the rest of scripture, you would not. The greatest commandment is to love God. I know some like to argue that we love God by loving our neighbor but then loving our neighbor would be the greatest commandment. I'd prefer an interpretation of the Good Samaritan that fit with the rest of scripture and tradition.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I would argue that the story of the Good Samaritan is saying that loving one's neighbour is enough.
You would argue it without biblical justification, since Jesus has just told an earnest inquirer that it isn't enough. Jesus is either contradicting himself, or trying to make a further point in a rhetorical manner. I am arguing against any presumption of negotiation when we read the Holy Scriptures.
Of course, this "theologically messed up Samaritan" business is all terribly convenient eisegesis, since the theology a first century Samaritan would have held is not really known today, and the Gospel writers had every theological reason to want to include Samaritans in the right side of matters.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by QLib:
I would argue that the story of the Good Samaritan is saying that loving one's neighbour is enough. It's the theologically messed-up Samaritan who is justified, not the impeccably orthodox (small o) priest and Levite. I would perhaps agree – again to take a point from Laurelin - that it takes the power of the Holy Spirit to live that out to the full. Ah, but how come the Samaritan managed it, then?
Yes, if you focus on only parable found in gospel, you might make that argument. If you look at the rest of scripture, you would not. The greatest commandment is to love God. I know some like to argue that we love God by loving our neighbor but then loving our neighbor would be the greatest commandment. I'd prefer an interpretation of the Good Samaritan that fit with the rest of scripture and tradition.
As I'm sure you know, the parable is told in the context of both commandments - Love God and Love your neighbour. To my mind the story has a clear and - yes - strongly rhetorical flourish. No doubt the Priest and the Levite think they are choosing rightly when they choose to put their temple service (love of God) before showing compassion to a stranger/neighbour. Are they shown to be right? Well, one could argue that it's left open, but I don't think so. To me the implication is clear.
As for the rest of Scripture... quote:
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 1 John 4, 20.
Zach - you're quite right that we don't know much about Samaritan theology - we just know that the Jews despised them for being 'wrong'.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 1 John 4, 20.
I can't even imagine how you think this is a rebuttal against anything Beeswax Altar said. No one has said we don't have to be charitable. No one.
quote:
Zach - you're quite right that we don't know much about Samaritan theology - we just know that the Jews despised them for being 'wrong'.
We have no basis for saying that this Samaritan was faithless. Since Jesus is making a point about what it means to be a neighbor and doesn't explore his motivations at all, citing it for your point here is rank proof-texting.
Posted by christianbuddhist (# 17579) on
:
I have no doubt that the human remains of Jesus exist somewhere, in some form. If they were found tomorrow, I'd still consider myself a Christian, because I don't think Christianity's significance and value rests on metaphysical truth claims.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
(You'll find that Zach82 has a rather onorthodox take on the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I'm thinking about opening a topic in Kerygmania some day.)
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(You'll find that Zach82 has a rather onorthodox take on the Parable of the Good Samaritan. I'm thinking about opening a topic in Kerygmania some day.)
Go ahead and say what you think is unorthodox about my interpretation. I bet dollars to donuts you've gotten it quite wrong.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I'm a bit busy right now. I'll try later this evening.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
originally posted by QLib:
As I'm sure you know, the parable is told in the context of both commandments - Love God and Love your neighbour.
Jesus tells the parable in response to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" asked by a lawyer. The lawyer didn't need to know which God he was supposed to love with all soul, strength, and mind. So, the parable only deals with that question. As Zach said, nobody is saying Christians aren't called to do acts of mercy. Just that there is more to being a Christian than doing acts of mercy. As Zach also said, if Jesus had stuck with telling people to do acts of mercy, nobody would have found Him the least bit threatening.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm a bit busy right now. I'll try later this evening.
I think I'll save you the trouble by predicting that you think I am arguing that this Samaritan is a respectable believer and that he's such a good neighbor for it.
But I'm not, so don't even bother typing it out if that's what you are going to say. What I've actually said is that Jesus doesn't say anything about this guy's beliefs or motivations at all, and is making a point about what it means to be a neighbor. It cannot, therefore, be used to proof text an argument for the unimportance of faith.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 1 John 4, 20.
I can't even imagine how you think this is a rebuttal against anything Beeswax Altar said. No one has said we don't have to be charitable. No one.
It wasn't intended as a rebuttal of what BA said; it was providing further scriptural context for my reading of the implications of the Good Samaritan story. The Samaritan made the better choice - it's easy to kid yourself that you love God and so much harder to love your neighbour.
quote:
quote:
Zach - you're quite right that we don't know much about Samaritan theology - we just know that the Jews despised them for being 'wrong'.
We have no basis for saying that this Samaritan was faithless. Since Jesus is making a point about what it means to be a neighbor and doesn't explore his motivations at all, citing it for your point here is rank proof-texting.
I didn't say the Samaritan was faithless. I said we know the Jews thought they were wrong As I understand it, the Samaritans claimed kinship with the Jews as co-descendants of Jacob but were despised for not holding to the true faith in their worship and practice.
As for proof-texting: I wasn't the one who started quoting scripture. Furthermore, I resent your comment above that my interpretation is 'convenient'. In what way, and for whom, is it convenient? The implication is that my belief is shallow, facile and insincere whereas yours is profound, hard-fought, deep. What possible grounds have you for asserting that? In my view that is dangerously close to a personal attack.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
It wasn't intended as a rebuttal of what BA said; it was providing further scriptural context for my reading of the implications of the Good Samaritan story. The Samaritan made the better choice - it's easy to kid yourself that you love God and so much harder to love your neighbour...
No doubt. What cannot be drawn from that, or the Parable of the Good Samaritan, is the unimportance of faith for those who are charitable.
quote:
I didn't say the Samaritan was faithless. I said we know the Jews thought they were wrong As I understand it, the Samaritans claimed kinship with the Jews as co-descendants of Jacob but were despised for not holding to the true faith in their worship and practice.
He would have to be faithless for your use of the text to work. Besides needing Jesus to bring the story up for completely different reasons, of course.
quote:
As for proof-texting: I wasn't the one who started quoting scripture. Furthermore, I resent your comment above that my interpretation is 'convenient'. In what way, and for whom, is it convenient? The implication is that my belief is shallow, facile and insincere whereas yours is profound, hard-fought, deep. What possible grounds have you for asserting that? In my view that is dangerously close to a personal attack.
I was commenting on a bad use of the text following from a theological agenda and not a sound understanding of the narrative and context.
Since the implication of what you are arguing is that I'm a shallow hypocrite that is obsessed with doctrinal abstractions over loving my neighbor, despite how many times I've explicitly denied it, you could probably take that characterization in stride.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I've opened the topic. I would like to ask if we could continue the discussion of this Parable there.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I didn't say the Samaritan was faithless. I said we know the Jews thought they were wrong As I understand it, the Samaritans claimed kinship with the Jews as co-descendants of Jacob but were despised for not holding to the true faith in their worship and practice.
He would have to be faithless for your use of the text to work. Besides needing Jesus to bring the story up for completely different reasons, of course.
Not at all, the Samaritan might or might not be pious according to the standards of his own faith. The point is that the Jews thought the Samaritans did not follow the True Faith. The Jews were the Children of Israel and the Samaritans were dogs - a belief that is quite explicitly referred to by Jesus elsewhere, as I'm sure you know. quote:
quote:
As for proof-texting: I wasn't the one who started quoting scripture. Furthermore, I resent your comment above that my interpretation is 'convenient'. In what way, and for whom, is it convenient? The implication is that my belief is shallow, facile and insincere whereas yours is profound, hard-fought, deep. What possible grounds have you for asserting that? In my view that is dangerously close to a personal attack.
I was commenting on a bad use of the text following from a theological agenda and not a sound understanding of the narrative and context.
Since the implication of what you are arguing is that I'm a shallow hypocrite that is obsessed with doctrinal abstractions over loving my neighbor, despite how many times I've explicitly denied it, you could probably take that characterization in stride.
I have not accused you of hypocrisy - I have no reason to question your sincerity (though I suspect your comment on the uselessness of ethics was made in haste and you did a bit of rapid back-pedalling). But you've just done it again: accused me of having a theological agenda and adjusting my reading of the text accordingly. Quite the opposite is true. However, I suggest moving further discussion of this tangent to Le Roc's new thread.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Jews were the Children of Israel and the Samaritans were dogs - a belief that is quite explicitly referred to by Jesus elsewhere, as I'm sure you know.
Actually, I don't. Where does he say that?
quote:
I have not accused you of hypocrisy - I have no reason to question your sincerity (though I suspect your comment on the uselessness of ethics was made in haste and you did a bit of rapid back-pedalling). But you've just done it again: accused me of having a theological agenda and adjusting my reading of the text accordingly. Quite the opposite is true. However, I suggest moving further discussion of this tangent to Le Roc's new thread.
That's why I said it was implied, and it remains the implication if you are right and I am wrong.
Just like you are indeed misusing the text for your theological ends if I am right. This is what happens in debates. One person is proved right and the other wrong.
And I'm not moving back one inch. I'll say it again too. The beatitudes are worthless without the one who speaks them. No ethics can justify anyone before God. Not even the beatitudes.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Jews were the Children of Israel and the Samaritans were dogs - a belief that is quite explicitly referred to by Jesus elsewhere, as I'm sure you know.
Actually, I don't. Where does he say that?
My apologies. It's a Canaanite woman to whom he makes the comment (joke?) about not giving the children's meat to the dogs (Matthew 15: 26). 'Dogs' was a term used for gentiles, but also for Samaritans, as commented on, for example, here and here . John's Gospel comments: 'For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.' (John 4: 9) So I still think it's wrong to suggest that Jesus' audience would have recognised the Samaritan as a man of faith at the point when he enters the story.
quote:
The beatitudes are worthless without the one who speaks them. No ethics can justify anyone before God.
It's the word 'worthless that's causing the problem here. This is what I thought you said originally, but then it seemed to me that you back-pedalled and qualified your remark by saying that the beatitudes were fine, but one couldn't stop there. However, now I understand that you are using the word 'worthless' as being synonymous with 'not sufficient for salvation'. I think such an all-or-nothing view is nonsensical, especially when you equate the ethics of the beatitudes with the (presumed and highly questionable) ethics of Pontius Pilate.
It seems very odd to say that a value is worthless unless it is backed not only by divine approval but by approval backed up miraculous intervention. If the beatitudes are good, then they are good in all circumstances - even if they are not in themselves sufficient for salvation.
quote:
No ethics can justify anyone before God. Not even the beatitudes.
Well, I would argue that love (caritas/agape) can – but I think that's for a different thread.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
My apologies. It's a Canaanite woman to whom he makes the comment (joke?) about not giving the children's meat to the dogs (Matthew 15: 26). 'Dogs' was a term used for gentiles, but also for Samaritans, as commented on, for example, here and here . John's Gospel comments: 'For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.' (John 4: 9) So I still think it's wrong to suggest that Jesus' audience would have recognised the Samaritan as a man of faith at the point when he enters the story.
I am looking at the parable's place in the narrative, and the reasons Jesus might have for giving it, and I just can't see how Jesus could possibly mean "faith isn't important" in that narrative. Until you can show how it fits in that context (which you haven't even tried to do), I can only conclude that your porting of these issues into the text is misplaced.
It simply isn't enough to prove that Jews didn't like Samaritans and thought they were false believers.
quote:
It seems very odd to say that a value is worthless unless it is backed not only by divine approval but by approval backed up miraculous intervention. If the beatitudes are good, then they are good in all circumstances - even if they are not in themselves sufficient for salvation.
"There is none good but one, that is, God." Matt 19:17
quote:
Well, I would argue that love (caritas/agape) can – but I think that's for a different thread.
Don't make the mistake of thinking "God is love" means "Love is God."
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
[I am looking at the parable's place in the narrative, and the reasons Jesus might have for giving it, and I just can't see how Jesus could possibly mean "faith isn't important" in that narrative. ... It simply isn't enough to prove that Jews didn't like Samaritans and thought they were false believers.
I'm saying theological correctness is not important. I would make a distinction between faith and belief. The Samaritan's actions show him to be a man of compassion and, quite possibly, a man of faith, even though most of Jesus' audience would have thought his theological position incorrect.
quote:
"There is none good but one, that is, God." Matt 19:17
You're not proof-texting now, are you? In any case, that is clearly a remark about people, and a beatitude is not a person. If these are God's laws, then they are good, and would be good even if the incarnation had never happened. Even if there is no God, these are still (mostly) good rules.
quote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking "God is love" means "Love is God."
I don't.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
I'm saying theological correctness is not important. I would make a distinction between faith and belief. The Samaritan's actions show him to be a man of compassion and, quite possibly, a man of faith, even though most of Jesus' audience would have thought his theological position incorrect.
I have no concept of faith being worthwhile if it is misplaced faith. So naturally belief and faith are closely connected.
You still haven't shown how any of this follows from the narrative of the text, though.
quote:
You're not proof-texting now, are you?
If it is, it's a much less egregious example of it by merit of the fact that I am using the text as the author intended it to be used.
quote:
I don't.
If you take it to mean that it is possible to love without knowing God, it seems to me that you do.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am using the text as the author intended it to be used.
Well, that is your opinion - it doesn't really get us any further. I don't suppose the authors ever intended that their texts be used in an argument on an internet bulletin board. If I have any more to say about the Good Samaritan parable, I will say it on the Kerygmania thread. quote:
quote:
quote:
Don't make the mistake of thinking "God is love" means "Love is God."
I don't.
If you take it to mean that it is possible to love without knowing God, it seems to me that you do.
quote:
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.1 John 4:7
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Well, that is your opinion - it doesn't really get us any further. I don't suppose the authors ever intended that their texts be used in an argument on an internet bulletin board. If I have any more to say about the Good Samaritan parable, I will say it on the Kerygmania thread.
Of course it's my opinion. What else would I argue? The question is whether my opinion or your opinion is justified.
quote:
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.1 John 4:7
Even more out of context than your Good Samaritan reference.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Well, that is your opinion - it doesn't really get us any further. I don't suppose the authors ever intended that their texts be used in an argument on an internet bulletin board. If I have any more to say about the Good Samaritan parable, I will say it on the Kerygmania thread.
Of course it's my opinion. What else would I argue? The question is whether my opinion or your opinion is justified.
quote:
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.1 John 4:7
Even more out of context than your Good Samaritan reference.
What your 'argument' boils down to is simple assertion that when you quote you're right and when I quote I'm wrong. The context here was that you, rather patronisingly in my view, warned me against confusing the proposition 'God is Love' with the proposition that 'Love is God'. I don't, and never have, claimed the latter, and I have not, since my teenage years, claimed the former. I prefer John's formulation: Love is of God.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
What your 'argument' boils down to is simple assertion that when you quote you're right and when I quote I'm wrong.
I don't know what's simple about it-- I looked at the context of the passage you cited and found that it made your interpretation pretty unlikely.
quote:
The context here was that you, rather patronisingly in my view, warned me against confusing the proposition 'God is Love' with the proposition that 'Love is God'. I don't, and never have, claimed the latter, and I have not, since my teenage years, claimed the former.
Meaning... your understanding of the Christian faith is even less biblical than I supposed before?
quote:
I prefer John's formulation: Love is of God.
Your preference is duly noted.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Meaning... your understanding of the Christian faith is even less biblical than I supposed before?
I can't answer for your suppositions about me. All sorts of factors colour a person's reading of the Bible. I find it amusingly naive of you to insist that my readings are dictated by my 'theological agenda' whereas yours, of course, aren't, and are simply in line with what the original author(s) intended.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
It's entirely possible. You've foregone the opportunity to examine my use of scripture, though. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that you have a very sound biblical basis for your beliefs. It's just that you haven't really mustered a very convincing case as it stands.
Of course, we all have a theological agenda when we read the bible. I haven't even tried to hide mine. Mine is the conviction that the only hope for righteousness is faith in Jesus Christ. But this doesn't mean that all agendas are alike, as you seem to assume. Some do more violence to the text and others less. Some take a wider view of the Scriptures, and others rely more on a "canon within the canon" to sustain themselves.
[ 18. October 2013, 13:40: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's entirely possible. You've foregone the opportunity to examine my use of scripture, though. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that you have a very sound biblical basis for your beliefs. It's just that you haven't really mustered a very convincing case as it stands.
Well, we're just going to have to agree to differ, I think. I agree that one can't interpret the story of the Good Samaritan in isolation - but I have on this thread, and on the one on Kerygmania, offered examples of texts that support my stance. However - and this is the nub - every time I quote, you say things about proof-texting, taking things out of context, doing violence to the text, not interpreting it the way the author intended (like you'd know) and so on. I don't really see how we can get beyond this - it just becomes a 'did'/'didn't', 'did so'/'did not' slanging match.
You may not find my interpretation convincing; I, equally, am unimpressed by your argument which includes comments such as 'Jesus told us he was a Samaritan, but he doesn't say anything about his beliefs'.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Well, we're just going to have to agree to differ, I think. I agree that one can't interpret the story of the Good Samaritan in isolation...
You may not find my interpretation convincing; I, equally, am unimpressed by your argument which includes comments such as 'Jesus told us he was a Samaritan, but he doesn't say anything about his beliefs'.
Oh, the dissonance.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Can I get back to a question Boogie asked to which I don't think she got an answer?
It seems to me that one aspect of this debate is about the importance (or otherwise) of a physical continuity between Jesus' dead post-crucifixion body and his resurrection body. More than a ressuscitation/re-animation, transformed no doubt... BUT
- it must be more than a ressuscitation à la Lazarus, because poor old Lazarus presumably had to go through all the aggro of dying all over again (I have thought for some time that he must be the most hapless miracle beneficiary ever).
- but if it is a blueprint for the final resurrection of all believers, and necessarily involves a supernatural transformation of his pre-death body, where does that leave those atomized, cremated, and so on?
I see the need for continuity of personhood and the importance of emphasising the fact that the resurrection is more than ethereal, but I also see the argument that continuity and personhood are about more than the actual pre-death flesh and blood - which "cannot inherit the Kingdom of God".
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can I get back to a question Boogie asked to which I don't think she got an answer?
It seems to me that one aspect of this debate is about the importance (or otherwise) of a physical continuity between Jesus' dead post-crucifixion body and his resurrection body. More than a ressuscitation/re-animation, transformed no doubt... BUT
- it must be more than a ressuscitation à la Lazarus, because poor old Lazarus presumably had to go through all the aggro of dying all over again (I have thought for some time that he must be the most hapless miracle beneficiary ever).
- but if it is a blueprint for the final resurrection of all believers, and necessarily involves a supernatural transformation of his pre-death body, where does that leave those atomized, cremated, and so on?
I see the need for continuity of personhood and the importance of emphasising the fact that the resurrection is more than ethereal, but I also see the argument that continuity and personhood are about more than the actual pre-death flesh and blood - which "cannot inherit the Kingdom of God".
Thank you, you described my position right now, almost perfectly. It's been illuminating following this discussion and the one on Patheos.
For me, I guess I would say that as long as there is a continuity of personhood between the pre-Easter Jesus and the risen Christ, that I'm agnostic about the details (physical vs spiritual resurrection). I do believe that "something happened on Easter morning." I just don't think I'm ever able to describe perfectly, what.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For me, I guess I would say that as long as there is a continuity of personhood between the pre-Easter Jesus and the risen Christ, that I'm agnostic about the details (physical vs spiritual resurrection). I do believe that "something happened on Easter morning." I just don't think I'm ever able to describe perfectly, what.
I believe there was a bodily resurrection of Christ, but that the details of that resurrection don't precisely match either what will happen at the final resurrection, or what happened in the other resurrection (resuscitation) miracles recorded in Scripture.
It's my perception that a lot of more conservative-minded Christians don't really think very carefully about the differences, and that this is a reason why these debates often degenerate fast.
This debate came up several years ago, on a thread which I have stored on a laptop that I can't power up right now - I think it was pre-Oblivion, too. One interesting point is that a lot more contributors seem to believe in a bodily ressurection of Christ (of some sort!) this time round than last time.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Within this creation it seems only fair to see my life as having time limits as well as my existence has spatial limits. That is how this creation works.
I do believe in there being a real continuity between my existence in this reality and whatever form my post parousia reality takes. I will still be me and recognisable to those who have known me here.
I also suspect that it is the whole of me through out life that will rise. If that is the case then the dimensions of the New Creation do not match those of this.
Jengie
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0