Posted                       

quote:

---

The Alethiophile wrote:

Bearing in mind that it began as a group of Jews, with reference to a Jewish rabbi, then it seems sensible to look at the Jewish idea of resurrection, how it was prior to the christians, how it changed and then to ask, "why?" - once you ask the sensible questions in a sensible order (and even anachronistically applying Ockham's razor) one is left - after a lot of study & thinking - with the startling conclusion that Jesus' resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for the genesis of christian belief which takes into account all the known factors that we can glean from history.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there is a wider problem with supernatural stuff - that there is no method whereby it can be described [...] so using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there is a wider problem with supernatural stuff - that there is no method whereby it can be described [...] so using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate

---

Yes, supernatural complicates things. Some people use the word as if it referred to some out there dimension that intersects natural reality when a miracle occurs. Yet it's only ever discernable in the mind of someone who "experiences" it. Otherwise it would be a natural phenomenon that left natural evidence.

The best we can say about the resurrection is that it was real in the minds of those who believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. All the historical claims rest on that.

The story, on the other hand, is as real and inspiring as it ever was. Weighing it down with claims about an intervention from God effectively exclude from church communities anyone who is self-aware enough to recognise that minds can play tricks on us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Yes and that's unfortunate. How can you prove "objective truth"? All scientific claims are provisional, subject to further revision by new
data. I believe some people took a mistaken idea (that science gives us "objective truth" or claims to do so) and tried to compete with it in those terms.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But seeing it literally seems odd to me, as if symbols must be concretized and historicized.

---

Hmmm, yeah... I think it's very strange that people should theorise that there is an actual objectively real person responsible for the posts headed by the symbol "quetzalcoatl". Clearly these posts are just a natural phenomenon, as in, a computer system just generating them. Why can't people just accept these posts for their symbolic value, instead of imagining that there is a real person writing them? (Not that there is such a thing as "objective reality" anyway, of course...)

I guess they must think in these concretised terms, because they can digest it more easily.

Most odd.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the demand for objective truth becomes acute in the post-Enlightenment period, and with the growth of science and secular philosophy. I always wonder if Christianity adopted a kind of inferiority feeling then, and felt it had to really prove that it was historically true, not just symbolically real.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

The best we can say about the resurrection is that it was real in the minds of those who believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. All the historical claims rest on that.

The story, on the other hand, is as real and inspiring as it ever was. Weighing it down with claims about an intervention from God effectively exclude from church communities anyone who is self-aware enough to recognise that minds can play tricks on us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yes. On the basis that there can be no reliable evidence that God physically resurrected Jesus, because it's a claim about an event documented only in stories handed down by those making the claim.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The first witnesses definitely, really believed they saw Jesus physically alive after his death.

---

quote:

---

Their further actions are logically derived from that belief.

---

quote:

---

Now remains only to decide whether they were correct or mistaken in that belief...

---

quote:

---

We simply hold that in regards to the Resurrection, we have a real occurrence and not a hallucination or other mental trick going on.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the demand for objective truth becomes acute in the post-Enlightenment period, and with the growth of science and secular philosophy. I always wonder if Christianity adopted a kind of inferiority feeling then, and felt it had to really prove that it was historically true, not just symbolically real.

---

How can something be "symbolically real"? Symbolism means nothing if the thing it symbolises isn't real. A good example if that would be the sacraments: sacraments mean bugger all otherwise.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I would concede that a coherent religion could be constructed on a supposed non-physical resurrection of Jesus, and even that such a religion could have great value in objectively improving the moral lives of its adherents. I just can't see any good reason why anyone should believe it in preference to the traditional view.

---

quote:

---

If something special and unique did happen to Jesus after his death, why not accept the best available evidence about what that was?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But seeing it literally seems odd to me, as if symbols must be concretized and historicized.

---

Hmmm, yeah... I think it's very strange that people should theorise that there is an actual objectively real person responsible for the posts headed by the symbol "quetzalcoatl". Clearly these posts are just a natural phenomenon, as in, a computer system just generating them. Why can't people just accept these posts for their symbolic value, instead of imagining that there is a real person writing them? (Not that there is such a thing as "objective reality" anyway, of course...)

I guess they must think in these concretised terms, because they can digest it more easily.

Most odd.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Not if we don't find the claim itself - physical resurrection - a real possibility. I've explained that's where I am.... I know that. You really, really believe it. But you haven't given me any reason to agree with you.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm fairly sure I won't find it convincing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I hope you're not saying that all symbols refer to something physical and concrete. For example, yes, 'quetzalcoatl' might refer to me, and I am physical; but it can also refer to the plumed serpent god of Mesoamerica. Well, OK, maybe he really exists also.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I see no point in trying to argue you into Christianity

---

quote:

---

that's not my job.

---

quote:

---

I was simply pointing out the logical chain

---

quote:

---

If something truly extraordinary happens and I witness it, and the event is something that by its very nature has strong implications for my life

---

quote:

---

then it is completely predictable that you will later find me in a movement, group, lifestyle, whatever based upon that event.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The question of the existence of the plumed serpent god is irrelevant. What you are arguing is that it is 'odd' that people should want to connect a symbol with a reality. The fact that there are symbols that are only connected to fantasy, does not mean that all symbols -especially those pertaining to spiritual things - should be regarded in this way.

There is simply no logic to your position, I'm afraid.

And if we were to think that there is some validity to what you say, then logically we should think it odd that anyone should connect a name - or internet moniker - (which is a symbol) with a real person. Clearly the act of making this connection is not strange behaviour, and this therefore demonstrates the fallacy of your claim.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

You wrote: "If something truly extraordinary happens and I witness it, and the event is something that by its very nature has strong implications for my life" as if you were referring to something that could be shown to have actually happened. If no-one else saw it, and there was no physical evidence that it had happened, it's just an experience personal to you.

Like, say, me seeing a water vole while walking by the river (they're rare here). If I told my partner she would believe me because a) she would trust me not make something like this up, and b) she's seen water voles in other places.

But if, say, I'd seen her (long dead) first husband and had a conversation with him, it would be an entirely different situation. We would both be concerned for my welfare. Certainly if it happened again we'd want to take steps to find out what was going on in my head. The point being, I don't think it would occur to us that anyone had been physically resurrected. We would assume this was something entirely in my mind that for some reason I was perceiving as real.

Why assume it was different for some early follower of Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

The resurrection story is supposed to have originated among a group that were already followers, or at least supporters, of Jesus. Someone says they've seen him alive? After what he said before? Who is going to be the first to say "don't be silly, it's grief/fear playing with your mind".

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another interesting example of symbols that don't have to be taken literally or physically, is the ascension.

Have you got ascension deficit disorder? Don't worry, read what Keith Ward said:

"We now know that, if [Jesus] began ascending two thousand years ago, he would not yet have left the Milky Way (unless he attained warp speed)."

I append a charming image, which I hope will not discommode anyone.

http://tinyurl.com/k2pezhz

(Thanks to James McGrath for some of the above material).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because there were multiple witnesses, and usually multiple witnesses to the same event, who could (and doubtless DID) compare notes afterward...

---

quote:

---

The disciples don't seem to have felt the qualms you imagine.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg

---

quote:

---

where is the bicycle?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg

---

The only problem I have with that are the hands; it looks as if Jesus is sliding up parallel bars, in much the same way as a small child is said to have asked of this sculpture (real title: Youth Advances)

quote:

---

where is the bicycle?

---

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the hands are odd; I'm sure there is a meaning to it, as Dali probably composed it very carefully. Some people object to the female figure, presumably Mary, as it is Dali's wife. I like the cosmic feel to it, as if earth and heaven are telescoped into one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just looking at some of the fabulous paintings of the ascension, of which there are many famous ones, but here is the Dali one, which I like, but probably, some people really don't.

http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think the biblical stories support varied takes on the resurrection.

1. There's no description of the resurrection. That is, no account of something happening at the tomb. People visit the tomb and find signs that it has happened already. Instead of descriptions of the resurrection we have descriptions of resurrection appearances.

---

Posted                         

Ah, hatless, I was wondering when you'd turn up

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
John has appearances in Jerusalem, but in chapter 21, we find some of the disciples have returned to fishing as if there had been no resurrection.

---

quote:

---

The resurrection happens to them. You could say the same about Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb, doubt giving way at different moments to faith for both of them.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But as far as I can see, a premise of the Gospel narrative is that the resurrection actually is materially true. The narrative only makes sense if it interacts with material reality. Which is why we are to be the most pitied among all men if the resurrection is not true. Or so it seems to me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another interesting question that gets raised is whether, 2000 years ago, people had the same distinction between factuality and narrative that we do, and I don't know the answer to that. 'Material truth' - again, I don't know if this is anachronistic.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I think the biblical stories support varied takes on the resurrection.

1. There's no description of the resurrection. That is, no account of something happening at the tomb. People visit the tomb and find signs that it has happened already. Instead of descriptions of the resurrection we have descriptions of resurrection appearances.

---

This actually, I think, lends credence to the accounts. Nobody was there when IT happened. Somebody could have made something up. If the whole thing was made up, it seems very likely they would have made that up too. But they didn't; they skip over this vital event and give us the before and after -- the things that people actually saw. Almost as if what got written down were the reports of witnesses to the events. Hmm.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ah, hatless, I was wondering when you'd turn up

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
John has appearances in Jerusalem, but in chapter 21, we find some of the disciples have returned to fishing as if there had been no resurrection.

---

I think "as if there had been no resurrection" is unnecessarily speculative. They don't suddenly exclaim "he is risen" in chapter 21. I think there's plenty of room for them to have met the risen Christ but not quite made sense of it all yet. Peter's return to fishing is often portrayed as him slinking back to his pre-Jesus life, but our bible study group recently decided it's not really that different from popping down to the shops.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The resurrection happens to them. You could say the same about Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb, doubt giving way at different moments to faith for both of them.

---

"The resurrection happens to them" has a certain ring to it, but it doesn't make sense of what is related, which is that the resurrection happens to Jesus!

The others realised the truth of the resurrection, perhaps, but in very different ways. The disciples at the tomb drew conclusions from its emptiness; the disciples on the road to Emmaus (belatedly) recognise Jesus.

I agree with you about the weirdness of Jesus' resurrection body (see my comments above) and the diversity of the narratives, but I tend to see them as pointing towards a fact we can't properly apprehend - the reality of the tangible resurrection of Christ - rather than an indication that it didn't happen.

My main reasons for this are firstly, the emphasis on the embodiedness of faith in Scripture, whether in this life or the life to come, secondly that's the way Paul seems to understand it, even if he never specifically mentions an empty tomb.

I should also add (as I did on a previous thread) that I'm not seeking to make a shibboleth out of this and am happy to go with "have you met the risen Christ?" for all intents and purposes of fellowship.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
There is such earnestness on board these days, such a desire to be good and right.

---

There is? I must have missed it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
In chapter 21 Peter presumably believes in the resurrection as a fact, as something that has happened to Jesus, but he seems not to have grasped the import of it, or not to have been grasped by it. I think it neatly demonstrates that believing Jesus has risen means nothing without a corresponding something happening inside the believer.

---

quote:

---

that closing thought is most welcome and very important. And a consequence of the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that Christianity having the theme of Incarnation at its heart has to mean that every spooky event or vision within it must have literally happened.

---

quote:

---

if the resurrection primarily happens in the lives of the disciples (which is what I think the weight of the narratives tells us) then that is properly and sufficiently incarnational for me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
But as far as I can see, a premise of the Gospel narrative is that the resurrection actually is materially true. The narrative only makes sense if it interacts with material reality. Which is why we are to be the most pitied among all men if the resurrection is not true. Or so it seems to me.

---

Another interesting question that gets raised is whether, 2000 years ago, people had the same distinction between factuality and narrative that we do, and I don't know the answer to that. 'Material truth' - again, I don't know if this is anachronistic.

---

Dafyd had a great answer. I'm going to throw in my two cents too.


First of all, evidence from the middle ages suggests that if anything, they erred on the opposite side. Fiction was not only recognized but perceived to be "lies" by much of the population*--getting fiction writers in trouble sometimes. In other words, they expected nonfiction to be true, and they expected what we now call fiction to be true also--and when they saw liberties being taken with the historical facts, they got outraged in a way that would never occur to us.

Now the medieval European attitude is no guarantee that first century Mediterranean-ers felt the same way, but I think it a bit more likely than that they had the very sophisticated distinctions between fact, truth, factually wrong but spiritually true, and so forth that a lot of people use today.

* note weasel words--I'm not so stupid as to think everyone was like this.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!