Originally posted by Eutychus:
First tell me what you think an evangelical is
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:'Progressive' is often (in religion and elsewhere) presented as going back then skipping over a current misconception to a more correct future. Two of the books quoted on the website (Biblical Literalism and Made on Earth) seem to to follow the stereotype. In many cases 'progress' becomes not taking the false direction of those we disagree with but keeping to an original truth.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Ah, the word to use today is "progressive"!
As per this website.
quote:Yes, that's part of the reason why I don't think the term 'liberal' applies to me. Most of the issues that divide people into 'conservatives' vs 'liberals' (including the DH topics) are non-discussions where I come from.
Honest Ron Bacardi: In their current iteration they derive a lot from American puritanism.
quote:You almost seem to claim this belief as exclusively evangelical.
Schroedinger's cat: You see, I consider my self an evangelical because (among other things) I accept the physical resurrection.
quote:I have seen the attitude one has to same sex relationships as being what defines a person as liberal theologically. Which would make me liberal.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But I am not a conservative - I think sexuality and sexual expression is between the people concerned and God.
quote:Oh now, that is one of those phrases that really makes me see red. What does it mean to "deny the resurrection"? Jesus Christ is alive now, with me, in me, so I don't deny the resurrection.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Liberals who deny the Resurrection ... ain't.
quote:Like that old chestnut ---- Call me what you like, just don't call me late for tea.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I have given up caring what other people call me. As long as it isn't exceptionally rude or libellous.
quote:As if there are only two choices ...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
First tell me what you think an evangelical is
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Oi! I wasn't going to comment on this thread!
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like Boogie proclaims.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I don't know anyone who would think of the resurrection as a conjuring trick with bones. David Jenkins certainly didn't. In the original Credo programme he talks about the significance of the resurrection being due to the fact that it was caused by God's action rather than being merely a conjuring trick with bones.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:Oh now, that is one of those phrases that really makes me see red. What does it mean to "deny the resurrection"? Jesus Christ is alive now, with me, in me, so I don't deny the resurrection.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Liberals who deny the Resurrection ... ain't.
But "conjuring tricks with bones"? See above.
quote:Nope. But it sets me apart from the OP, who I would define, theologically speaking, as liberal.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:You almost seem to claim this belief as exclusively evangelical.
Schroedinger's cat: You see, I consider my self an evangelical because (among other things) I accept the physical resurrection.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Several years ago we had a thread where Christians of all stripes were chiming in, and I noticed that not a one of them (no matter how "out there", and no matter how many other miracles they denied) denied the bodily Resurrection. It was a huge comfort to me. Have things changed that much?
quote:I was thinking along those lines too, LC, except the discussion I remember was when somebody claimed that to deny the historicity of the resurrection was a hallmark of being a theological liberal. Numerous shipmates jumped in to say "I'm a theological liberal but believe in the resurrection as a fact in history". It was an assertion from outside that provoked that. Nobody here has quite asserted that, but they have come close - or rather, it's the other way around, their non-belief being why they call themselves liberal.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:To my mind, Jenkins and Spong are very different creatures, and of totally diferent calibres. Jenkins was much closer to my position, as I understand myself and him, in that his faith in God as an entity beyond consciousness, rather than merely a name for a principle of human consciousness, which to my mind is where Spong ends up.
Originally posted by Martin60:
You make my point ThunderBunk
If you can see through the mist:
How 'liberal', Spongiform like Jenkins are you? Is the hypostatic union, the Incarnation real?
Or, was Jesus Zaphod Beeblebrox? Just this guy, you know? Like Boogie proclaims.
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
quote:I was waiting for this.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
quote:After having suitably condemned any notions of binariness, and no matter how many choices you think there are, doubtless you will delight in telling us there is some truth in all of them which inform your perfectly balanced view
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
quote:As if there are only two choices ...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
First tell me what you think an evangelical is
quote:You talk as if: a) I wanted, rather than feared, this possibility. b) I was applying it to you personally, or indeed, to anybody here personally. c) Mainstream theology (or any theology, including mine) gets a vote. d) I was or ever do make it my job to decide whether an individual is a Christian.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:I was waiting for this.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
Please stop trying to define me as a non-Christian. Firstly, my position is a mainstay of mainstream theology of the twentieth century. Secondly, not your job.
Any further attacks on my faith will be met in hell. This is personal, whatever handwaiving may occur.
quote:It says this at the front of our Church (I did the art work, the sunrise depicts the empty tomb)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
quote:In my Easter message, I affirmed the bodily resurrection of Christ, because I personally can't escape that as being what is presented to us in the Gospels and epistles.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
As for the rest, I believe in the realities behind the narratives, not in the literal truth of the narratives. In the case of the resurrection, the biblical accounts are not exactly of a physical life resumed on the same terms as those on which it was running before the crucifixion. The experience of the disciples was not a straightforward one, and I think it does that experience a serious disservice to see it only in terms of the revival of a corpse.
Probably a typical liberal answer, but I'm trying to be true to both spirit and intellect, which are the guides which have taken me where I have travelled.
quote:It's attempting to be a way of describing one particular approach to the resurrection, not of dismissing it. Certainly not intended as an insult. Apologies for the lack of grace.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Describing views I for one happen to espouse a little more generously than "revival of a corpse" would be nice.
quote:Yes, I agree. That's a fundamental difference. And we must remember that Jenkins' famous comment about the Resurrection was frequently misquoted and misunderstood.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
To my mind, Jenkins and Spong are very different creatures, and of totally diferent calibres. Jenkins was much closer to my position, as I understand myself and him, in that his faith in God as an entity beyond consciousness, rather than merely a name for a principle of human consciousness, which to my mind is where Spong ends up.
quote:Yes; but many Evangelicals don't see that. Of course there are some liberals who too easily dismiss Scripture they don't understand/don't agree with/can't fit into a rationalistic worldview; but there are many others who examine it very carefully using good linguistic and theological tools.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I know people who appear to all intents and purposes to adhere to liberal theology (higher criticism, etc.) who examine what the Bible says far more seriously than most of the evangelicals I know.
quote:A "resurrection" which is not physical is not a resurrection; it is merely the continuation of a spiritual presence, the soul continuing to exist after the body dies.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:Oh now, that is one of those phrases that really makes me see red. What does it mean to "deny the resurrection"? Jesus Christ is alive now, with me, in me, so I don't deny the resurrection.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Liberals who deny the Resurrection ... ain't.
But "conjuring tricks with bones"? See above.
quote:Life in God.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"So what?"
quote:Are those the only two options?
Fr Weber: A "resurrection" which is not physical is not a resurrection; it is merely the continuation of a spiritual presence, the soul continuing to exist after the body dies.
quote:I'm not sure about this. The main reason I don't really call myself a liberal is that fights over some issues (especially DH ones) aren't really relevant for me. So I don't want to define myself in terms that relate to that fight.
ThunderBunk: This reinforces my feeling that the liberal approach to and relationship with faith is becoming a minority position
quote:Context is surely hugely important, and the context created by the OP is purely theological.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I'm not sure about this. The main reason I don't really call myself a liberal is that fights over some issues (especially DH ones) aren't really relevant for me. So I don't want to define myself in terms that relate to that fight.
ThunderBunk: This reinforces my feeling that the liberal approach to and relationship with faith is becoming a minority position
Questions of the form "should women be allowed to officiate?", "should gay people have the same place in church?" or "does evolution explain the diversity of species" are met by me with a "duh, of course". I don't see why I should name myself a term that refers to questions like this. I don't call myself a gravitationist either just because I believe in gravitation.
quote:Where I am from, they mostly are.
ThunderBunk: And I'm afraid that the other questions aren't as settled as we agree they should be.
quote:I disagree. Having
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Context is surely hugely important, and the context created by the OP is purely theological.
quote:and debating them is one thing. The context of discussing them in preaching, quite possibly on Easter Sunday, to a congregation that evidently held diverse views on the subject, is not just theological, it's pastoral.
theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection
quote:In that sense, I entirely stand corrected. Mea culpa.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I disagree. Having
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Context is surely hugely important, and the context created by the OP is purely theological.quote:and debating them is one thing. The context of discussing them in preaching, quite possibly on Easter Sunday, to a congregation that evidently held diverse views on the subject, is not just theological, it's pastoral.
theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection
quote:I doubt any serious orthodox theologian has ever seen the resurrection only in terms of the revival of a corpse.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The experience of the disciples was not a straightforward one, and I think it does that experience a serious disservice to see it only in terms of the revival of a corpse.
quote:Last time this came up, I did a back of the envelope calculation, which if I remember correctly had the result that there are more carbon atoms in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than in all the human beings that have ever lived.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know that we can't possibly be physically resurrected - (who would get which atoms which have been recycled 1000s of times?) and, if not us, then why Jesus?
quote:Indeed it is. And of course there may be people in the congregation who find it helpful for their own understanding of their faith to hear that there are Christians who believe in the Resurrection without necessarily believing in a physical Resurrection. (On a slight tangent, I recall a priest- in fact a previous vicar of the OPer's church- telling me with some exasperation that he had just had his ear bent by a member of the congregation who objected to his having suggested in his sermon that St John was indeed the author of the Fourth Gospel!)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I disagree. Having
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Context is surely hugely important, and the context created by the OP is purely theological.quote:and debating them is one thing. The context of discussing them in preaching, quite possibly on Easter Sunday, to a congregation that evidently held diverse views on the subject, is not just theological, it's pastoral.
theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection
quote:No I don't think so. A liberal view would want to invite you to explain your view, and would also want to discuss the other views. Not holding to physical resurrection perhaps may be counted as a non-traditional view. Liberalism is not the opposite of traditional. It means free inquiry, no easy dismissal of ideas, and while it implies progressivism, it does not dismiss traditional ideas. It just doesn't rank the received traditional ideas as higher than more recently acquired knowledge and ideas. It is hostile to appeals to authority and uncritical acceptance of things. It is why we call some higher education the "liberal arts".
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair enough. As I've said, I think not holding to a physical resurrection counts as a "liberal" view.
quote:Disagree. Liberalism may well say no if reason and inquiry lead to that. Such as we did about young earth creationism.
Originally posted by Martin60:
And no... that's my point. A liberalism that says no isn't.
quote:There are a number of different ways in which one can be liberal, some of which are often contrary. So I try to be specific about whether you are talking socially, theologically, economically or ecclesiastically.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
I preached about the theological problems surrounding the idea of a physical resurrection. Parishioners and former students alike have said that I'm an 'old liberal.' Never mind the old, but what's liberal, really? Should one feel insulted or wear the badge with pride?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Because God exalted Jesus to be Lord of history and King of the Universe
I know that we can't possibly be physically resurrected - (who would get which atoms which have been recycled 1000s of times?) and, if not us, then why Jesus? [/QB]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I've always felt that this is a little over-stated, probably for the audience Paul was worried about when he wrote or dictated it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Put me in the same corner with Lamb Chopped, and add this to the fire:
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
(1 Cor 15:13-19)
quote:Making me wonder where Anglican Brat got this pre-resurrection Christianity idea from, since Paul is as early as it gets for Christian writings. If there was a Christianity before the introduction of the idea of a physical resurrection, where's the evidence?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(But then we're on Paul with this, and Paul seems to me to have cared less for Jesus' life, much more on having him dead and coming back to life. So I'm not really very keen on Paul.)
quote:People listening to that Jesus guy, whoever they thought he was, and trying to do what he said? And taking comfort in some of what he said?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Making me wonder where Anglican Brat got this pre-resurrection Christianity idea from, since Paul is as early as it gets for Christian writings. If there was a Christianity before the introduction of the idea of a physical resurrection, where's the evidence?
quote:Yes but where is this documented? The earliest documents we have are firmly resurrectionist.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:People listening to that Jesus guy, whoever they thought he was, and trying to do what he said? And taking comfort in some of what he said?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Making me wonder where Anglican Brat got this pre-resurrection Christianity idea from, since Paul is as early as it gets for Christian writings. If there was a Christianity before the introduction of the idea of a physical resurrection, where's the evidence?
quote:If you believe that Luke wrote Acts, and that he is reliable, it would appear that Peter also took something more than a passing interest in Christ's "coming back to life".
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
(But then we're on Paul with this, and Paul seems to me to have cared less for Jesus' life, much more on having him dead and coming back to life. So I'm not really very keen on Paul.)
quote:Might the earliest documents be resurrectionist because they are Paul's letters, and that was his preoccupation?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but where is this documented? The earliest documents we have are firmly resurrectionist.
quote:I didn't say I believed that.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Fascinating Eutychus. So NOTHING literally, physically happened, there wasn't even a bloke called Jesus, but there is a story we made up and on its say so there is eternal life, despite that being a tad more complex than a contingent eternal infinite multiverse.
quote:By that definition, and again as already stated, many, many self-proclaimed evangelicals of my acquaintance are liberal. They parrot what they think the Bible says (or what a preacher told them it said) instead of looking at what it actually says.
Originally posted by Sipech:
Theologically, I'd say a liberal is one who plays fast and loose with biblical interpretation.
quote:How do you know that? It's just your assumption.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:It says this at the front of our Church (I did the art work, the sunrise depicts the empty tomb)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
I sat in Church on Easter Sunday looking at it and thinking 'is he?' I don't know any more.
I know that we can't possibly be physically resurrected - (who would get which atoms which have been recycled 1000s of times?) and, if not us, then why Jesus?
quote:Then everyone is a liberal.
Sipech: Theologically, I'd say a liberal is one who plays fast and loose with biblical interpretation.
quote:No I doubt the physicality of resurrected life, not the same thing
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Theologically, you should accept it if you are happy with it. If you doubt the reality of the physical resurrection, that probably makes you a liberal.
Labels - I think they are interesting, and I tend to accept them if other people want to use them, but I also define myself with other labels - often contradictory. They don't define who you are, they define how someone else has seen you.
quote:aaargghh, no, no, no. I follow Christ with all the energy I can muster.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
quote:In heaven, wherever that is. That's the whole point. "There is a man in heaven".
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And to all of you who identify orthodoxy with a physical resurrection (assuming by that that Christ's risen body can be apprehended physically and not merely that his corpse has been glorified): well, where is it?
quote:Not something this Zwinglian feels the need to affirm.
And how come he can be eaten and united with us in the eucharist?
quote:I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
And how will God be 'all in all' as the same Paul you drag as evidence, said?
quote:Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
quote:To the extent that Christ "makes all things new", I'm hedging my bets, but in my limited understanding of theoretical physics I don't see much problem with there being some sort of physical space we cannot accurately identify.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
That's precisely my point, do you truly believe heaven's a place, somewhere?
quote:I didn't say "because". I don't have any problem reconciling my belief in a physical resurrection body with the real presence, simply because I have never believed in the latter, and I don't see it as foundational to my faith in the way that I find the resurrection to be.
I cannot understand how anyone can believe with Calvin (not just Zwingli) that Christ cannot be present in the eucharist because 'his body is in heaven and not here,'
quote:As Paul's encounter with Jesus did not happen until after he was raised from the dead, it is perhaps not so much preoccupation as his way of relating with Christ.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:Might the earliest documents be resurrectionist because they are Paul's letters, and that was his preoccupation?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes but where is this documented? The earliest documents we have are firmly resurrectionist.
quote:Perhaps not; in the passage in question, one might query his understanding of fish and animals having different types of "flesh", for instance.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
quote:Please, no. All that stuff about wearing your hair short and not offending the angels, and being caught up into the air to meet the Lord on the clouds...
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know, but I'd be curious to know how you deal with that bit about the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:To the extent that Christ "makes all things new", I'm hedging my bets, but in my limited understanding of theoretical physics I don't see much problem with there being some sort of physical space we cannot accurately identify.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
That's precisely my point, do you truly believe heaven's a place, somewhere?
quote:The conservative vs liberal debate in My Little Pony fandom is particularly nasty.
hatless: Does the same debate happen in Islam and Sikhism, in psychiatry, economics, town planning, cookery and archery?
quote:(I took the liberty of fixing your code back there)
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Then I'm sorry to say your understanding of theoretical physics is indeed limited. If it's physical, it can be measured. That's the very definition of physical, even if we are not yet able to measure it.
quote:It's really not a variation on Where's Wally... it's a vision of the kingdom of heaven which is akin to Scientology and belief in Xenu 'somewhere in space' though completely unobservable as far as we can tell. No thanks. Sometimes, what used to be orthodoxy (God exists beyond the seventh heaven, the lunar sphere, where Jesus dwells bodily and heaven is in his company) simply needs to be revised.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:(I took the liberty of fixing your code back there)
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Then I'm sorry to say your understanding of theoretical physics is indeed limited. If it's physical, it can be measured. That's the very definition of physical, even if we are not yet able to measure it.
Let me try again.
As I understand it, there are bits of the universe and dimensions we hypothesise to exist but cannot see. In view of that, I'm not too worried about trying to play some variation on "where's Wally" for the current location of Christ's resurrected body in the observable universe.
quote:"You don't really understand ponies. You don't really care for them, do you? You don't know how to make them happy, or protect them. I'm sorry to say it, but I'm not actually sure that you even like pink."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The conservative vs liberal debate in My Little Pony fandom is particularly nasty.
hatless: Does the same debate happen in Islam and Sikhism, in psychiatry, economics, town planning, cookery and archery?
quote:In my layman's estimation, this would mean that the resurrected Christ could be non-observable to us now if God can achieve FtL travel, which you may feel is offside right away, but to my little brain, this is not too much of a problem.
Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe (...) there is a "future visibility limit" beyond which objects will never enter our observable universe at any time in the infinite future.
quote:The comoving distance (or radius) of the observable universe is now about 46.6 billion light years, and ever increasing as the universe expands. Are you really saying that God zapped the physical body of Christ some 50 billion light years away so we can't see it, and that's where heaven is, some sort of physical space though unobservable?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm so out of my depth here that I'll have to resort to quoting from Wikipedia:
quote:In my layman's estimation, this would mean that the resurrected Christ could be non-observable to us now if God can achieve FtL travel, which you may feel is offside right away, but to my little brain, this is not too much of a problem.
Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe (...) there is a "future visibility limit" beyond which objects will never enter our observable universe at any time in the infinite future.
[x-post]
quote:OK, that's a much fairer challenge to my mind.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
It's really not a variation on Where's Wally... it's a vision of the kingdom of heaven which is akin to Scientology and belief in Xenu 'somewhere in space' though completely unobservable as far as we can tell. No thanks. Sometimes, what used to be orthodoxy (God exists beyond the seventh heaven, the lunar sphere, where Jesus dwells bodily and heaven is in his company) simply needs to be revised.
quote:Just until He finishes repairing His TARDIS.
Joesaphat: Are you really saying that God zapped the physical body of Christ some 50 billion light years away so we can't see it, and that's where heaven is, some sort of physical space though unobservable?
quote:As I say, I'm just not scientifically minded enough for this to bother me, but the possibility (possibility, mind) of heaven being "some sort of physical space though unobservable" does not seem too unpalatable to me.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Are you really saying that God zapped the physical body of Christ some 50 billion light years away so we can't see it, and that's where heaven is, some sort of physical space though unobservable?
quote:Agreed with the first part, not with the second part.
Barnabas62: My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now".
quote:I wouldn't bother, hatless. It's more or less what I said earlier, and apart from LeRoc nobody else took it up then either.
Originally posted by hatless:
Is there one liberal conservative debate that goes on in Christianity? The same debate that is sometimes about one subject and sometimes another? Does the same debate happen in Islam and Sikhism, in psychiatry, economics, town planning, cookery and archery?
Though it appears to be about, on this page, the resurrection, is it really about us and not where we stand, but how we choose where we stand; what we are about as people?
How else do you explain beliefs that have clearly been chosen, not arrived at by considering evidence, but chosen because 'they must be true', because they are necessary - necessary for reasons into which we seem to choose not to have insight.
quote:There's a difference between being theologically liberal and simply being lazy. Some theological liberals can be quite biblically literate, only how they read the bible is quite different, often trying to read through the text, rather than engage with what is said. e.g. I've heard Paul's entire theology dismissed as his attempt at repairing his own personal guilt for his role in Stephen's death.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:By that definition, and again as already stated, many, many self-proclaimed evangelicals of my acquaintance are liberal. They parrot what they think the Bible says (or what a preacher told them it said) instead of looking at what it actually says.
Originally posted by Sipech:
Theologically, I'd say a liberal is one who plays fast and loose with biblical interpretation.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I have the feeling you're painting 'liberal' Bible reading with a rather broad brush here. Also, I'm not sure whether reading through the text and 'engaging with what is said' are mutually exclusive (nor even if the latter can be done without the former).
Sipech: Some theological liberals can be quite biblically literate, only how they read the bible is quite different, often trying to read through the text, rather than engage with what is said.
quote:I am. That's the point. Liberal/orthodox is not a binary position, it's a spectrum. I might be regarded as a heretic by some, a liberal by others, because I don't affirm the historicity of the virgin birth. Yet to others, I might be considered more orthodox because I do affirm the historicity of the resurrection.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I have the feeling you're painting 'liberal' Bible reading with a rather broad brush here.
Sipech: Some theological liberals can be quite biblically literate, only how they read the bible is quite different, often trying to read through the text, rather than engage with what is said.
quote:I suppose I'd say in the new creation. Which I suppose is something like a parallel universe, or one of those sf alternate histories in which someone went back in time and killed Hitler.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And to all of you who identify orthodoxy with a physical resurrection (assuming by that that Christ's risen body can be apprehended physically and not merely that his corpse has been glorified): well, where is it?
quote:My problem here is that I don't see how it's possible for Christ to be human and not in material form. Even if we do have immaterial souls - and actually I don't believe we do - I believe we're entirely material - our material bodies are integral parts of us. They're how we relate and communicate.
I'm happy to say that Christ is risen, just not in material form.
quote:Their beliefs might have been chosen by experience, not out of necessity at all. There still are people who, like Paul, encounter the risen Christ.
Originally posted by hatless:
Though it appears to be about, on this page, the resurrection, is it really about us and not where we stand, but how we choose where we stand; what we are about as people?
How else do you explain beliefs that have clearly been chosen, not arrived at by considering evidence, but chosen because 'they must be true', because they are necessary - necessary for reasons into which we seem to choose not to have insight.
quote:This.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think its an appropriately important focus, you think its a preoccupation. But either way the point remains that a pre-resurrection Christianity isn't documented or evidenced.
quote:In a modern, aesthetic sense, I have interpreted "world without end" as a putting of human beings in their place, where, given our short life spans and the age of the world/universe, it approximates to eternity.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think it is probably an orthodox Christian belief.
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen".
From which you can infer, I think, that Eternity was, is and always will be "now". Of course such understanding is outside human experience in the here and now. So what is it? An article of faith? Probably not. In my case, I'd call it an inkling, a glimpse, maybe also a hope.
quote:Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
quote:I'm OK with that, but I still don't believe that 'taking everything at face value' vs 'playing fast and loose' are the right terms to describe the extremes of this spectrum.
Sipech: Liberal/orthodox is not a binary position, it's a spectrum.
quote:Because our physical universe and its rules are not only immutable, but the only imaginable reality?
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
quote:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And to all of you who identify orthodoxy with a physical resurrection (assuming by that that Christ's risen body can be apprehended physically and not merely that his corpse has been glorified): well, where is it? You know, physical things if they are to be called physical in any meaningful sense, can be measured, observed, located... so where is he? And how come he can be eaten and united with us in the eucharist? And how will God be 'all in all' as the same Paul you drag as evidence, said?
I'm happy to say that Christ is risen, just not in material form.
quote:But if the resurrected life is/was non-physical, how could it be clung on to (or not)(Mary Magdalene), touched (Thomas), break bread (the Emmaus story) and cook and eat fish (breakfast on the lake shore and an upper room appearance).
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
No I doubt the physicality of resurrected life, not the same thing
quote:I don't think that human = material form.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
My problem here is that I don't see how it's possible for Christ to be human and not in material form.
quote:There's much that St Paul says that is difficult to understand. St Peter says as much. But given the choice between who knows more about God's truth, St Paul or me or any other shipmate for that matter, I tend to think it's healthier to assume St Paul knows more than I do, that I can trust his judgement more than my own. And that's even without making an allowance for whatever one's understanding is of the authority of scripture.
Is it essential to believe everything Paul believed?
quote:I can't speak for Thunderbunk or Boogie or anyone else, but I find that question deeply disturbing. "Theological truth" is defined in so many ways. When I first came to faith in my teens it was such a wonderful thing that I swallowed the whole conservative evangelical package, which was what I was around at the time. For years I accepted it all and didn't think about it - basically turning my brain off.
Originally posted by Enoch:
But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
quote:This is a characterisation of liberal theology I don't agree with. I don't see that I'm lowering the bar in any way.
Enoch: 'couldn't we lower the bar a bit?'
quote:The problem with accepting "the whole package"
Originally posted by Enoch:
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
quote:Does that energy reflect all the faith you can muster?
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:aaargghh, no, no, no. I follow Christ with all the energy I can muster.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I debated this, but I guess I'll throw it in anyway--
I don't think belief in the real resurrection of Christ (that is, body, soul and everything, NOT as a metaphor) is the dividing line between conservative and liberal. I fear it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian, as Paul wrote:
quote:
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. (Romans 10:8-10)
quote:Er, does Joesaphat need to justify his faith for you to judge?
ExclamationMark: Does that energy reflect all the faith you can muster?
quote:I do hold to the bodily resurrection. But putting myself in another's shoes it looks to me like another passage that I'd interpret differently. You would take certain aspects of that passage more literally than I would. It's a bit like a YEC pointing me to various passages in Genesis or in Jesus' references to creation and saying "What do you think of that then?". Well, I think lots of things, some of them are different interpretations, some of them simple disagreements, some of them similar.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm still hoping for a view on 1 Cor 15 from anyone who does not hold to the bodily resurrection of Christ, particularly in view of my post here.
quote:How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
quote:Well, Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body". Whatever Paul means by a spiritual body it must be something different from a physical body.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm still hoping for a view on 1 Cor 15 from anyone who does not hold to the bodily resurrection of Christ, particularly in view of my post here.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm genuinely curious. I've asked this question before when this subject has come up and nobody seems to want to give me an answer.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) about the Greek words, then neither is it the clincher for arguing against bodily resurrrection that people hold it to be, either.
quote:Teleporting is not the same as walking through walls. (Does nobody read classic X-Men these days?)
Originally posted by Boogie:
How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
quote:Agreed. But as posted above, to me it suggests a body belonging to the subject, not something that happened to the observer, which is what you imply here:
Originally posted by hatless:
Well, Paul says "it is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body". Whatever Paul means by a spiritual body it must be something different from a physical body.
quote:Perhaps it's the linguist in me, but while this sounds very elegant and poetic, it seems to me that you are making "dog bites man" into "man bites dog".
I think resurrection is something that happened gradually to the disciples
quote:I think this is your strongest argument, and the one I'm most open to persuasion by. However, back in 1 Cor 15 Paul does seem to qualify that insistence, citing his own case as being "as to one untimely born".
But Paul insists that it is the same, another resurrection appearance. I think this devalues the gospel stories.
quote:Not directly, no, I agree. But as pointed out above, to my mind it suggests Paul assumed one. And if that assumption is wrong, I return to my question of why we should pay any attention to anything else he said.
we can say that Paul insists on resurrection because it is crucial to his understanding of how we relate to God in Christ. This does not help in establishing a historical resurrection.
quote:I don't know, but I'm unfailingly fascinated by the juxtaposition of your posts on threads on the resurrection and your interest in graveyards as displayed in your sig.!
Now, what I think I'm doing here is refusing to collapse the complexity of scripture into a Modernist search for factoids. Does that make me a liberal?
quote:This makes some sense.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
N T Wright (who is definitely not on the liberal side of this debate!) reckons that "physical" and "spiritual" are pretty bad translations of what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15, esp. 42-49. His argument is that the Greek words Paul uses cannot mean "made out of physical stuff" vs "made out nebulous, spiritual stuff" (my words, not Wright's, or Paul's for that matter); it's about what animates or powers the body. The pre-resurrection body is powered by what's mortal and doomed to die; the post-resurrection body is powered by what comes from God, what comes the Spirit, which is immortal. It doesn't say anything about what it's made from, so to speak.
quote:It makes enough sense for me to want to cast around for an alternative to "bodily" (see above) and avoid speculation about the digestive processes of the risen Christ ("what happened to all the fish").
Originally posted by Boogie:
This makes some sense.
quote:Because believing has nothing to do with choosing? I can't choose to believe things; they either seem true or not. That's what believing means to me. I don't question the physical bodily resurrection because of any benefit to doing so; I find I just dp; it's an incredible claim and I can't make myself believe it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
My third question might sound odder. It's why choose a liberal interpretation? What benefit does it give one over accepting the full traditional Christian package in its complete New Testament and Nicene form?
quote:For the same reason. I can't choose to believe things, packaged or individually. If the bodily physical resurrection doesn't seem likely to be true, then no amount of determination my part is going to make it seem any more likely.
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
quote:Right. Pause to deflate a little. Now start an answer.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not theologically liberal.
My third question might sound odder. It's why choose a liberal interpretation? What benefit does it give one over accepting the full traditional Christian package in its complete New Testament and Nicene form?
I can see that for some people it may be easier at first if the bar is a bit lower and then for it to be progressively raised as we walk in faith and our faith muscles are stretched. But it must be better to believe more, rather than to be content with continuing to believe less.
I suspect this is a very alien thought to some shipmates. But why do so many of us feel we are obliged to pick over and question each piece of theological truth for ourselves? Why not just accept the entire package, gratefully and with joy? It takes one so much further.
My apologies, by the way to Lamb Chopped and Mousethief if you are horrified that somebody who has written what I've just written has also aligned themselves with your earlier words.
quote:Sorry, I missed this earlier.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
will be along soon to explain why the idea contravenes some fundamental principle of physics or other. quote:Well, it's a bigger problem than that. A car goes through fog by pushing the fog aside. We'd notice if things were being pushed aside by "more real" objects passing through them.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Sorry, I missed this earlier.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
In The Great Divorce CS Lewis offers the idea that (just as your car drives through a bank of fog because it is more solid than the fog), the stuff of Heaven (including bodies) is more solid than the most solid stuff of this world.
I wouldn't advance this as gospel and would file it firmly under "idle speculation". Besides, doubtless some heartless liberal scientist
I like it nonetheless, if only for the reversal of perspective it generates.
quote:I seem to recall that the same word that is translated as "spiritual" here is also used in the description of Hero's engine (a primitive steam-powered rotating device). Or to put it another way, it is not made of steam but powered by steam.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This makes some sense.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
N T Wright (who is definitely not on the liberal side of this debate!) reckons that "physical" and "spiritual" are pretty bad translations of what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15, esp. 42-49. His argument is that the Greek words Paul uses cannot mean "made out of physical stuff" vs "made out nebulous, spiritual stuff" (my words, not Wright's, or Paul's for that matter); it's about what animates or powers the body. The pre-resurrection body is powered by what's mortal and doomed to die; the post-resurrection body is powered by what comes from God, what comes the Spirit, which is immortal. It doesn't say anything about what it's made from, so to speak.
quote:Perhaps a different kind of body, that can switch between matter and energy, or some such? Or something like our current bodies, but with an innate knowledge of the physics required to move our atoms between those of a wall?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
quote:Yeah, but none of them have managed to claim Randi's money, have they? Call me sceptical if you like, but this makes no sense to me. We can talk about atoms and physics if we like but what you describe is magic, not physics.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Perhaps a different kind of body, that can switch between matter and energy, or some such? Or something like our current bodies, but with an innate knowledge of the physics required to move our atoms between those of a wall?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:How tangible is a person who can walk through walls and teleport?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... so we can be sure that our resurrection will be equally tangible (another Great Divorce fan here).
In various spiritual traditions, there are accounts of people doing that kind of thing with their current tangible bodies, by learning to focus their energy.
quote:Thank you for posting that, hatless. The paragraph I've quoted resonates very much with an experience of my own.
Originally posted by hatless:
When I have struggled to find things to say to Mum for half an hour, playing her music she doesn't recognise and listening to her fumble for lost words, she sometimes says, as I stand in the doorway, as fluent and clear as anything, 'Goodbye, darling.' And the years of childhood are there in the few feet between us.
quote:That really gets to the heart of it for me; indeed, it seems to be very much what's on Paul's mind in 1 Cor 15 too.
Originally posted by hatless:
I cannot afford anything that seems to me to be wishful thinking. There must be no false hope.
quote:Fascinating. This says to me that we're not very far apart, but we're looking at very similar pictures rather differently. I see Thomas's fist in Jesus's side, and set it against the appearance through walls, and the not-entirely-matter-like behaviour of Christ's body in the post-resurrection appearances, and emphasise what is not like what we know. I think I do it because of my entirely convinced emphasis on realised eschatology: that, to quote the hymn, now is eternal life, and Christ has joined us in that life through the resurrection, and that this is the bit that matters, the bit that gives life, not questions about physicality or otherwise, and not intellectual subscription or subservience to a particular normative narrative account; the experience of God alive and active within and among us now.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
All I can say is that in addition to (and perhaps partly because of) all that, I can't shake off the hope of a future resurrection, and the conviction that if that hope is wishful thinking, then all hope is false.
And Christ being risen, as himself, not just simply in the minds of his followers (again, however meaningful and impactful for them such a "resurrection" might be in your terms), underpins that hope for me.
There I stand, at least at present.
quote:I'm not sure about other uses of 'spiritual' (πνευματικός), but Paul's word that is being translated as 'physical' is ψυχικός, which when in the form of a noun (ψυχή) is usually translated as something like 'soul'. I have to say I find the ESV's translation as 'natural' more appealing than the NRSV's choice of 'physical', though neither strikes me as perfect.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:I seem to recall that the same word that is translated as "spiritual" here is also used in the description of Hero's engine (a primitive steam-powered rotating device). Or to put it another way, it is not made of steam but powered by steam.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:This makes some sense.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
N T Wright (who is definitely not on the liberal side of this debate!) reckons that "physical" and "spiritual" are pretty bad translations of what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15, esp. 42-49. His argument is that the Greek words Paul uses cannot mean "made out of physical stuff" vs "made out nebulous, spiritual stuff" (my words, not Wright's, or Paul's for that matter); it's about what animates or powers the body. The pre-resurrection body is powered by what's mortal and doomed to die; the post-resurrection body is powered by what comes from God, what comes the Spirit, which is immortal. It doesn't say anything about what it's made from, so to speak.
quote:Yes. Those times are there too after they have died.
Originally posted by hatless:
But those moments, rare and imperfect, when we are fully present, when we are genuine and honest and listen to each other as if it was the first or last chance to do so, they seem to transcend time and space.
quote:Again, I'm tempted to ask, in the words of a famous internet meme, Why Not Both?
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I think I do it because of my entirely convinced emphasis on realised eschatology: that, to quote the hymn, now is eternal life, and Christ has joined us in that life through the resurrection, and that this is the bit that matters, the bit that gives life
quote:You're going to have to exegete that, at least for me.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there's a more than enough cigarette paper for terminal emphysema between "in the minds of his followers" and "bodily".
quote:Or, as Paul put it rather earlier, as I now realise, "for me to live is Christ, to die is gain".
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Again, I'm tempted to ask, in the words of a famous internet meme, Why Not Both?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think there's a more than enough cigarette paper for terminal emphysema between "in the minds of his followers" and "bodily".
quote:Do you mean you don't follow the expression about cigarette paper between alternatives, or you don't believe there are any options between those two, or that you want scriptural support for the options?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You're going to have to exegete that, at least for me.
quote:[tick]
Originally posted by mdijon:
you don't follow the expression about cigarette paper between alternatives
quote:Smoke-induced damage where holes get punched throughout the lung tissue.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[looks up emphysema (which is the part I was struggling with) in dictionary]
quote:Why would you "choose" to believe something unless you think it's true? And if you think it's true, then you already believe it. If you don't, then you already don't believe it and I don't get how you can pretend to yourself that you don't know it's not true. Or don't know that you don't really know.
Originally posted by Pomona:
I guess I just don't see why it can't just be a miracle - of course it's unbelievable, that's the point of a miracle. And if God is not a God who can perform miracles, what power or point does God have at all? For me it's just a case of logic - if God parted the Red Sea and Jesus walked on water, then a bodily Resurrection is no harder to believe in. I believe in the former so there's no reason for me to not believe the latter.
Also maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I don't see the problem with choosing to believe something. If a doctor diagnoses me with something, I may not be able to see all the evidence but I choose to believe them because they have authority in this area. Choosing to believe those who drew up the historic creeds of the Church because they have authority in that area doesn't seem much different. People choose to believe things based on things other than feelings all the time.
quote:No Fr, it cannot be left to the imagination. You demonstrably cannot have any spatially extended stuff, aka matter, without time. If eternal is to mean timeless then eternal things must also be non material. It ain't poetry, it's modern physics.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Because our physical universe and its rules are not only immutable, but the only imaginable reality?
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
quote:Neither do I, but I do have a problem with choosing to believe a particular thing and then saying to anyone who doesn't: "you're playing fast and loose", "you're lowering the bar for yourself" or questioning the strength of their faith.
Pomona: I don't see the problem with choosing to believe something.
quote:Yes, mine too, what I wrote was rash. I'm just annoyed that people go on 'imagining' and dipping in CS Lewis etc whilst utterly disregarding the laws of thermodynamics, or Augustine, or Aquinas... Good luck showing how physical objects can be eternal in the face of entropy though.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Heck, sub-atomic particle physics is increasingly a consistent (or at least attempted-consistent) imagining of that which is behind that which is observed. It's model building.
There is a difference between asserting that a) eternal things must be non-material (fundamentalist position) and b) arguing that you cannot see how eternal things can be material, based on current understandings (admission of possible ignorance) of the laws governing the physical universe. My position is b) by the way.
quote:Again, why are you assuming this is a property of the body rather than a miracle? Also Scripture doesn't say he passed through brick walls, it says he appeared in the upper room.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
quote:I have had these kinds of experiences and spoken these words in testimony.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Jesus convinced me of his resurrection, his eternal existence, through a sighting which combined a physical body with light, and a voice which spoke as a resonance on my soul.
quote:I had no such powerful feelings of love. The experience was not imagined. In fact, it was affirmed through an unwitting third party, as such profound experiences often are so that we may tell them apart from self-induced dreams.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have had these kinds of experiences and spoken these words in testimony.
I no longer believe them myself - I think it was my own perception of powerful feelings (love of Jesus) which induced this in my (sub)consciousness. No outside influence, however much it seemed so at the time. Sadly.
quote:If you go to the doctor and they diagnose you with something that they can see (whether visually or via assessment) but you cannot, surely you are choosing to trust their judgement and believe them? Ultimately you cannot really know for certain without having medical knowledge yourself - you choose to believe them and trust their knowledge. You wouldn't turn around and say 'the doctor says I have xyz condition but I don't personally know, therefore we can't say for certain'. It's the same for me with the Church and the early lines drawn in the sand around canon and creeds etc. I choose to believe and trust the knowledge of the Church Fathers and Mothers as in this instance they have knowledge I don't have.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Why would you "choose" to believe something unless you think it's true? And if you think it's true, then you already believe it. If you don't, then you already don't believe it and I don't get how you can pretend to yourself that you don't know it's not true. Or don't know that you don't really know.
Originally posted by Pomona:
I guess I just don't see why it can't just be a miracle - of course it's unbelievable, that's the point of a miracle. And if God is not a God who can perform miracles, what power or point does God have at all? For me it's just a case of logic - if God parted the Red Sea and Jesus walked on water, then a bodily Resurrection is no harder to believe in. I believe in the former so there's no reason for me to not believe the latter.
Also maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I don't see the problem with choosing to believe something. If a doctor diagnoses me with something, I may not be able to see all the evidence but I choose to believe them because they have authority in this area. Choosing to believe those who drew up the historic creeds of the Church because they have authority in that area doesn't seem much different. People choose to believe things based on things other than feelings all the time.
Which is the case with the resurrection. I don't know whether it's true or not. I have no firm basis really to think it is or it isn't; so by definition I neither believe in it nor believe it didn't happen. I don't know. I can't know.
quote:Do we need to go back a step there and define 'eternity' a bit better? (Or for that matter 'timeless'?) On my desk at present, I happen to have a copy of a paper by Dimitru Staniloae, the Romanian Orthodox theologian, entitled Eternity and Time (published by the Sisters of the Love of God in 2001, I think from a 1971 talk - no idea if it exists in any other form). He makes an intriguing suggestion that:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:No Fr, it cannot be left to the imagination. You demonstrably cannot have any spatially extended stuff, aka matter, without time. If eternal is to mean timeless then eternal things must also be non material. It ain't poetry, it's modern physics.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Because our physical universe and its rules are not only immutable, but the only imaginable reality?
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
quote:If we ran with something like that, it could imply a time-like quality to eternity that allows something that is essentially matter to continue to subsist? His argument seems to stem from the living character of God, which he suggests requires 'continual newness'.
Eternity cannot be simply an unchangeable substance... Such an eternity would not be inexhaustible... Eternity must include an interior dimension and freedom of will.
quote:I don't understand what he means by a 'spiritual' body. I've read Wright, and I think I agree, it's a Spirit-animated body as opposed to one powered by the flesh, but that does not say much about the nature of the said body as such. He seems to envisage some sort of continuity between the two (what is sown int he flesh... is raised etc). I don't bother listening to him at all when in Thessalonians he envisages some kind of rapture of a physical nature. Jesus descending on the clouds and taking us beyond the seventh heaven... nah, I don't think it's worth listening to, or inspired.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd still like to know your thoughts on Paul's line of argument in 1 Cor 15, failing which I'll tend to assume it amounts to nothing more than "why bother listening to Paul at all?"
quote:Given that I was one of the imaginers, you can take it that I do not utterly disregard the laws of thermodynamics or our understanding of entropy. By the same token, I think Augustine and Aquinas get a pass if any of their imaginings show a disregard of future findings.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Yes, mine too, what I wrote was rash. I'm just annoyed that people go on 'imagining' and dipping in CS Lewis etc whilst utterly disregarding the laws of thermodynamics, or Augustine, or Aquinas... Good luck showing how physical objects can be eternal in the face of entropy though.
quote:I don't choose to believe the doctor. I believe him, but it's not a conscious decision. I know the processes by which doctors come to their conclusions, and that the process works, so I think he's probably right. Indeed, I couldn't choose not to believe him, because I'd know I was just trying not to believe what I was pretty sure was true.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:If you go to the doctor and they diagnose you with something that they can see (whether visually or via assessment) but you cannot, surely you are choosing to trust their judgement and believe them? Ultimately you cannot really know for certain without having medical knowledge yourself - you choose to believe them and trust their knowledge. You wouldn't turn around and say 'the doctor says I have xyz condition but I don't personally know, therefore we can't say for certain'. It's the same for me with the Church and the early lines drawn in the sand around canon and creeds etc. I choose to believe and trust the knowledge of the Church Fathers and Mothers as in this instance they have knowledge I don't have.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Why would you "choose" to believe something unless you think it's true? And if you think it's true, then you already believe it. If you don't, then you already don't believe it and I don't get how you can pretend to yourself that you don't know it's not true. Or don't know that you don't really know.
Originally posted by Pomona:
I guess I just don't see why it can't just be a miracle - of course it's unbelievable, that's the point of a miracle. And if God is not a God who can perform miracles, what power or point does God have at all? For me it's just a case of logic - if God parted the Red Sea and Jesus walked on water, then a bodily Resurrection is no harder to believe in. I believe in the former so there's no reason for me to not believe the latter.
Also maybe I'm the odd one out here, but I don't see the problem with choosing to believe something. If a doctor diagnoses me with something, I may not be able to see all the evidence but I choose to believe them because they have authority in this area. Choosing to believe those who drew up the historic creeds of the Church because they have authority in that area doesn't seem much different. People choose to believe things based on things other than feelings all the time.
Which is the case with the resurrection. I don't know whether it's true or not. I have no firm basis really to think it is or it isn't; so by definition I neither believe in it nor believe it didn't happen. I don't know. I can't know.
quote:He did, 'and the doors were locked for fear of the Jews.' The narrative takes great care to show that this would not normally be possible, as with the stone rolled (and under guard, and sealed, ta dah, as magicians do) before the tomb. I am definitely not assuming it's a property of Christ's body, in fact I'd hesitate to speak of a 'body' at all, though I have no other words.
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:Again, why are you assuming this is a property of the body rather than a miracle? Also Scripture doesn't say he passed through brick walls, it says he appeared in the upper room.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
quote:I think maybe I would divorce thinking something is true from knowing something is true....for me I believe in things I don't know are true, but that's not the same as not thinking they're true - I don't know and usually it's not possible for me to know, so I choose to positively believe. That's not the same as thinking something is untrue and choosing to believe it anyway. The resurrection isn't something I can know the answer to in an intellectual sense, but I make the choice to believe in it because people I trust (eg Paul) have said that it's true. To me that is no different to choosing to believe in gravity because Isaac Newton says it's true.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In that case, it's conceivable that something could be on the +ve on the belief axis but -ve on the thinking axis - i.e., as Mark Twain said, believing something you don't think is true. I have no use for that.
So, as an exercise, you could choose to believe that grass is blue, even though you know it's green, because they're independent, yes? No? Why not?
Belief may lead to action, but it's not an action itself. It's an affirmation that you think something's true. I believe a doctor when he tells me I've got a hernia because I think he's right. I'm not sure what it would mean to divorce believing something is true from thinking something is true. In Latin and French it's not even possible.
quote:Depends on how much of the grass they'd let me smoke first.
Karl: Liberal Backslider: So, as an exercise, you could choose to believe that grass is blue, even though you know it's green, because they're independent, yes? No? Why not?
quote:But I don't believe gravity is true because Isaac Newton says it's true. I believe it's true because apples fall to earth. I believe Newton's equations are true because they work. And, indeed, I believe they are false in situations as they don't work - such as where very strong gravitational fields or very high velocities are concerned.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:I think maybe I would divorce thinking something is true from knowing something is true....for me I believe in things I don't know are true, but that's not the same as not thinking they're true - I don't know and usually it's not possible for me to know, so I choose to positively believe. That's not the same as thinking something is untrue and choosing to believe it anyway. The resurrection isn't something I can know the answer to in an intellectual sense, but I make the choice to believe in it because people I trust (eg Paul) have said that it's true. To me that is no different to choosing to believe in gravity because Isaac Newton says it's true.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In that case, it's conceivable that something could be on the +ve on the belief axis but -ve on the thinking axis - i.e., as Mark Twain said, believing something you don't think is true. I have no use for that.
So, as an exercise, you could choose to believe that grass is blue, even though you know it's green, because they're independent, yes? No? Why not?
Belief may lead to action, but it's not an action itself. It's an affirmation that you think something's true. I believe a doctor when he tells me I've got a hernia because I think he's right. I'm not sure what it would mean to divorce believing something is true from thinking something is true. In Latin and French it's not even possible.
quote:If that's so then where's the inconsistency? There's only a conflict between a fish-eating body and appearing in the locked room if the later was done by some mechanism of the body. But the Scripture doesn't say that. It simply presents an impossible act i.e. a miracle, as it does in numerous other cases, many pre-resurrection.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:He did, 'and the doors were locked for fear of the Jews.' The narrative takes great care to show that this would not normally be possible, as with the stone rolled (and under guard, and sealed, ta dah, as magicians do) before the tomb. I am definitely not assuming it's a property of Christ's body, in fact I'd hesitate to speak of a 'body' at all, though I have no other words.
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:Again, why are you assuming this is a property of the body rather than a miracle? Also Scripture doesn't say he passed through brick walls, it says he appeared in the upper room.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
quote:HIs point seems to be that we cannot simply say that eternity is a constant, unchanging reality. If it were so, then there is not 'space' for God to be the living God. He goes on to cite Barth, as referring to a God who is entirely unmoved is dead, and goes on to identify the movement of love as a key feature of eternity.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
"Eternity cannot be simply an unchangeable substance... Such an eternity would not be inexhaustible... Eternity must include an interior dimension and freedom of will.'
What the hell does Staniloae want to say?
quote:Not sold. Of course the Gospel describes a miracle, the question is: did an immaterial 'body' eat fish or did a material body pass through closed doors?
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:If that's so then where's the inconsistency? There's only a conflict between a fish-eating body and appearing in the locked room if the later was done by some mechanism of the body. But the Scripture doesn't say that. It simply presents an impossible act i.e. a miracle, as it does in numerous other cases, many pre-resurrection.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:He did, 'and the doors were locked for fear of the Jews.' The narrative takes great care to show that this would not normally be possible, as with the stone rolled (and under guard, and sealed, ta dah, as magicians do) before the tomb. I am definitely not assuming it's a property of Christ's body, in fact I'd hesitate to speak of a 'body' at all, though I have no other words.
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:Again, why are you assuming this is a property of the body rather than a miracle? Also Scripture doesn't say he passed through brick walls, it says he appeared in the upper room.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
quote:Still makes absolutely no sense to me. Death means absence of movement in a physical world but one should not extrapolate from that; and to equate as he does 'the movement of love' with plain spatial movement is just nonsense to me.
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:HIs point seems to be that we cannot simply say that eternity is a constant, unchanging reality. If it were so, then there is not 'space' for God to be the living God. He goes on to cite Barth, as referring to a God who is entirely unmoved is dead, and goes on to identify the movement of love as a key feature of eternity.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
"Eternity cannot be simply an unchangeable substance... Such an eternity would not be inexhaustible... Eternity must include an interior dimension and freedom of will.'
What the hell does Staniloae want to say?
And so, if there is movement (change?) in eternity then this seems to imply something very roughly analogous to time.
(Though saying all that, he also wants to recognise the tension of setting this against God as the same yesterday, today and forever.)
quote:I'd say the later because in John 20 Jesus appears again in a locked room and Thomas gets to handle him - and is convinced by the experience.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:Not sold. Of course the Gospel describes a miracle, the question is: did an immaterial 'body' eat fish or did a material body pass through closed doors?
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:If that's so then where's the inconsistency? There's only a conflict between a fish-eating body and appearing in the locked room if the later was done by some mechanism of the body. But the Scripture doesn't say that. It simply presents an impossible act i.e. a miracle, as it does in numerous other cases, many pre-resurrection.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:He did, 'and the doors were locked for fear of the Jews.' The narrative takes great care to show that this would not normally be possible, as with the stone rolled (and under guard, and sealed, ta dah, as magicians do) before the tomb. I am definitely not assuming it's a property of Christ's body, in fact I'd hesitate to speak of a 'body' at all, though I have no other words.
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:Again, why are you assuming this is a property of the body rather than a miracle? Also Scripture doesn't say he passed through brick walls, it says he appeared in the upper room.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
quote:The physics of the natural world are God's creation, and as alterable by him as anything else which he has made.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:No Fr, it cannot be left to the imagination. You demonstrably cannot have any spatially extended stuff, aka matter, without time. If eternal is to mean timeless then eternal things must also be non material. It ain't poetry, it's modern physics.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:Because our physical universe and its rules are not only immutable, but the only imaginable reality?
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:Yes, and time is inextricably linked with space, and therefore matter. Eternal life in this sense cannot be material.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My understanding of eternity is outside of the time flow we observe in this life. So eternity is always "now". When we die, we proceed to the new now "without passing go or collecting 200 dollars" (my thanks to Tom Lehrer). We will all go together when we go. Even though we depart separately. Go figure.
Which, amongst other things, is how I resolve the pre-millenial, post-millenial, a-millenial views about the last days and the general resurrection.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:The text never says that Thomas touched, only that Christ invited him to do so.. but that's pedantic, and I wholeheartedly agree: absolutely none of those who knew him in the flesh recognised him immediately.
Originally posted by mdijon:
There are other clues that Jesus' resurrected body was not like his former body. There seemed to be a very low rate of recognizing him. This might be simply because it wasn't expected, but taking him for the gardener and the walk to Emmaus it does seem like there was something different about him.
I've often wondered why he said "Do not cling to me" in John 20. It seems that the Gospels communicate that the resurrection was not putting the clock back and regressing to a pre-crucifixion state. And the scars were seen and touched.
quote:I did try to engage with it above:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This post still appplies.
quote:My point is that whether you (generic) believe in miracles or not there's no inconsistency in the text between a non-miraculous eating of fish and a miraculous appearance in a locked room - because the text assumes the miraculous is possible. Also, crucially, it doesn't say how the miraculous takes place and therefore even if the resurrected body is different in some way, it doesn't tell us that the body needed to be different (and not capable of fish consumption!) to allow the miracle.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
"And it's fine to disbelieve in miracles but I don't think you can argue that the Bible is inconsistent on this. Unless you can show that the Bible is saying that Jesus could only appear in locked rooms because he had a body with a certain property that allowed such. Oh and that such a body couldn't eat fish."
I don't necessarily disbelieve in miracles, I just won't allow two miracles when one will do. Christ's risen body was either immaterial or not, if the latter, eating fish is quite fine but appearing in a locked room is miraculous, if the former appearing in the upper room is dandy but eating a fish breakfast miraculous.
quote:Not entirely true on that last part:Matthew says the women recognised Jesus as soon as they saw him. John also says that the disciples recognised Jesus when he came and stood among them, without any wondering who he was. As does Luke, though in his story they're frightened he's a ghost, hence the eating a fish thing. So the "not recognising him" is not a universal thing; indeed, it seems the disciples as a group are pretty good at recognising him.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:The text never says that Thomas touched, only that Christ invited him to do so.. but that's pedantic, and I wholeheartedly agree: absolutely none of those who knew him in the flesh recognised him immediately.
Originally posted by mdijon:
There are other clues that Jesus' resurrected body was not like his former body. There seemed to be a very low rate of recognizing him. This might be simply because it wasn't expected, but taking him for the gardener and the walk to Emmaus it does seem like there was something different about him.
I've often wondered why he said "Do not cling to me" in John 20. It seems that the Gospels communicate that the resurrection was not putting the clock back and regressing to a pre-crucifixion state. And the scars were seen and touched.
quote:Ah, I see. I was hoping you'd engage with the earlier part of the chapter!
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:I did try to engage with it above
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This post still appplies.
quote:As I understand it, the first person to envisage a "rapture" as commonly understood today was a seventeenth century Argentinian Jesuit called Lacunza.
I don't bother listening to him at all when in Thessalonians he envisages some kind of rapture of a physical nature.
quote:I don't think it's surprising, then, that your view earns you the badge, of pride or shame, as you like, of "liberal".
I don't think it's worth listening to, or inspired.
quote:I agree with this part. I've heard some weird things being said about eternity, or about God being outside of time, which more or less means the same thing.
TomM: HIs point seems to be that we cannot simply say that eternity is a constant, unchanging reality.
quote:Actually that's perhaps not so pedantic. Someone pointed this out to me before and I wondered about the scene. The implication is that Thomas is in rather a bashful state at this point, more in the falling-to-knees-my-Lord-and-my-God mood rather than at-last-let's-have-a-prod mood. I think it's quite likely that he didn't poke around, but on the other hand I can't cope with a Christ who invited him to touch when there was nothing to touch.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
The text never says that Thomas touched, only that Christ invited him to do so..
quote:I think for exactly the reason you mention--but in a metaphorical sense. "Do not cling to me" was I think a way of saying, "Okay, enough, get up, let's get going, we've got things to do and only 40 days to do it in. Cling to the Spirit who is coming soon--my time here in the old way is almost up."
Originally posted by mdijon:
I've often wondered why he said "Do not cling to me" in John 20. It seems that the Gospels communicate that the resurrection was not putting the clock back and regressing to a pre-crucifixion state.
quote:I'm sorry, but this is just silly. I can think of one hypothetical kind of body that would be able to do both things perfectly well, and that is one that is realer, denser (if you will) than the wall and fish both--one that can walk through the wall as if it (the wall) were fog, and not the body.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
quote:I don't know, He seems rather laid-back after the Resurrection. One of the things I like most is the fish barbecue he did on the beach (more than sufficient proof that Jesus is Brazilian).
Lamb Chopped: let's get going, we've got things to do and only 40 days to do it in.
quote:Me neither. Though I think Thomas might have been embarrassed on top of all the shock--it's not often that a supposedly-dead man shows up to quote your exact rude words back at you!
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Actually that's perhaps not so pedantic. Someone pointed this out to me before and I wondered about the scene. The implication is that Thomas is in rather a bashful state at this point, more in the falling-to-knees-my-Lord-and-my-God mood rather than at-last-let's-have-a-prod mood. I think it's quite likely that he didn't poke around, but on the other hand I can't cope with a Christ who invited him to touch when there was nothing to touch.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
The text never says that Thomas touched, only that Christ invited him to do so..
quote:Heh. He was doubtless in a hurry on that first day when the women met him--lots of people to freak out whoops "appear to." Things probably calmed down a bit later.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't know, He seems rather laid-back after the Resurrection. One of the things I like most is the fish barbecue he did on the beach (more than sufficient proof that Jesus is Brazilian).
Lamb Chopped: let's get going, we've got things to do and only 40 days to do it in.
quote:But at least He folded up His death cloth neatly first. His mother would have approved.
Lamb Chopped: Heh. He was doubtless in a hurry on that first day when the women met him
quote:Yes, or how many dimensions is creation actually not just our consciousness of it. You know of Flatland? Something that can move through a dimension where we are restricted to experience just a singularity can circumvent walls quite easily.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:I'm sorry, but this is just silly. I can think of one hypothetical kind of body that would be able to do both things perfectly well, and that is one that is realer, denser (if you will) than the wall and fish both--one that can walk through the wall as if it (the wall) were fog, and not the body.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
And I do understand that people want to be faithful to Scripture, but Scripture is simply inconsistent on the matter: the kind of body that digests fish on the beach simply cannot pass through brick walls as it were fog;
To be sure, it will probably turn out to be more complicated than that. But if my limited imagination can come up with that, God will certainly do far better.
quote:I can just imagine this. So they're lulling around in their barrack on Sunday morning, and this guy they crucified two days ago (they remember Him because of all those crazy women around) walks in naked as a jaybird: "would you terribly mind giving those back to me?" Dumbstruck, they hand Him over the package, stammering "o-… of course sir". Minutes after He left, they're still standing still, staring at the emptiness in front of them with enormous eyes.
Lamb Chopped: He thinks maybe Jesus popped into the soldiers' barracks and politely asked for them back
quote:I never said that Paul's not worth listening to or that he was not inspired, you're inflating my claim in order to shoot it down. I merely said that not everything from his pen can be considered inspired.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Ah, I see. I was hoping you'd engage with the earlier part of the chapter!
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
quote:I did try to engage with it above
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This post still appplies.
If for the sake of the argument I grant you that Paul had defective cosmology, I don't think that necessarily invalidates his thought processes nor his appeals to evidence.
As far as I can see, the argument in 1 Cor 15 goes along these lines:
a) the risen Christ has appeared to many eyewitnesses, and later to Paul "untimely born"
b) if there's no resurrection, the whole thing is a waste of time
c) as is getting baptised for the dead
(from b) and c) we get the idea that of life after death is inextricably bound up in Paul's mind with resurrection; it is a continuation of independent existence, not simply a memory marching on)
d) so if the general resurrection is for real on the basis of Christ's resurrection, what might our resurrection body be like?
This to me is independent of arguments about the details of that body, where it might be located, and whether Paul thought the earth rested on a series of turtles. He appears to make the resurrection, and the resulting hope of life after death, the entire rationale for the gospel message. And that is where I find myself too.
quote:As I understand it, the first person to envisage a "rapture" as commonly understood today was a seventeenth century Argentinian Jesuit called Lacunza.
I don't bother listening to him at all when in Thessalonians he envisages some kind of rapture of a physical nature.quote:I don't think it's surprising, then, that your view earns you the badge, of pride or shame, as you like, of "liberal".
I don't think it's worth listening to, or inspired.
Strenuously trying to avoid Dead Horse issues, my question to you is, then, why bother with Paul, or indeed the Gospel, at all? How to choose what is "inspired", or not?
quote:First, there's nothing inherently liberal in taking a non-physical or non-literal or non-realist position about miracles. Possibly "modernist" or "progressive" ?
Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not theologically liberal.
My third question might sound odder. It's why choose a liberal interpretation? What benefit does it give one over accepting the full traditional Christian package in its complete New Testament and Nicene form?
quote:I would say that Paul is describing that our eventual salvation means that we enter into divine life and glory. How he communicates this theology is through his particular cosmology which envisions the divine life as residing in heaven.
I struggle to see how 1Thess4.17 for instance could have been dictated by the Holy Spirit: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."
quote:No. I happen to believe in the resurrection. I just don't think it's a material thing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Joesaphat:
I didn't mean to suggest that you thought none of Paul was inspired, and I can understand you think his cosmology is loopy.
But what intrigues me is that Paul's sequence of ideas in the first part of 1 Cor 15, and most of his preaching, argue the case for the resurrection and the hereafter. He seems to tie his whole gospel, not to primitive cosmology, but to that. Do you find that part has nothing relevant to say to you?
quote:Paul's not talking about the ascension. He's describing how the second coming would take place, in his lifetime (we who are alive...) and he's definitely talking of terrestrial bodies being caught up in the clouds 'to be with the Lord in the air'. Make of it what you want.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:I would say that Paul is describing that our eventual salvation means that we enter into divine life and glory. How he communicates this theology is through his particular cosmology which envisions the divine life as residing in heaven.
I struggle to see how 1Thess4.17 for instance could have been dictated by the Holy Spirit: "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."
To be orthodox and liberal, I suppose would be to affirm the truth that Paul is pointing too, while not accepting the literalness of how Paul communicates that truth. It is how I respond to arguments mocking the Ascension as a scientific impossibility. The Ascension is about Jesus fully entering the divine life, not about Jesus literally skyrocketing through the physical heavens. The early Church may see fit to tell that truth through a pre-scientific mythology, but I believe we can affirm that truth without requiring us to accept that mythology.
quote:How does that fit, in your mind, with Anglican Brat's affirmation:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
No. I happen to believe in the resurrection. I just don't think it's a material thing.
quote:Do you think the resurrection is more than any of those? (not an orthodoxy test, I promise, I'm just trying to understand!)
I don't believe that the Resurrection was a metaphor, that it only occurred in the minds of the disciples or that it was only "Jesus lives through his message."
quote:What I make of it is (again) very much what Anglican Brat makes of it:
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
Paul's not talking about the ascension. He's describing how the second coming would take place, in his lifetime (we who are alive...) and he's definitely talking of terrestrial bodies being caught up in the clouds 'to be with the Lord in the air'. Make of it what you want.
quote:Paul's cosmology on the one hand and his certainty of the appearance of the risen Christ as a cornerstone of the hope of the Gospel are two different things to my mind. I think it's possible to embrace one and not the other.
How he communicates this theology is through his particular cosmology which envisions the divine life as residing in heaven.
quote:On the subject of grief hallucinations this is interesting. It certainly makes it clear how common they are!
Originally posted by Martin60:
Part of the narrative is that a handful of key players around Jesus had solitary visions. Paul (who WASN'T daft according to his time's lights) was notably objective about one of his.
The only reasons for a Christian not to believe them are reductionist.
quote:I think the two are oblique. The Orthodox lack nothing on anybody for conservative theology, but we don't think of God in terms of control and independence, but in terms of creating, giving, and loving. I don't remember one of our prayers saying God is in control. We have tons saying "thou art ... the lover of mankind" or the "giver of good things."
Originally posted by hatless:
Is there a different conception of God in these tendencies, do you think?
People who think in terms of authority will think of God in terms of truth, control and independence.
The alternative is more complicated but would be to think of God relationally and dynamically.
quote:This seems to me untrue.
Originally posted by hatless:
Is there a different conception of God in these tendencies, do you think?
People who think in terms of authority will think of God in terms of truth, control and independence.
The alternative is more complicated but would be to think of God relationally and dynamically.
quote:I'm not sure if this is true, whether it relates to what hatless has said, or even what it means.
Dafyd: To think of other people solely in regards to their relationship to me, without regards to truth, is to think of them solely as they serve my purposes or my psychological needs.
quote:Or which simply exists in a different environment under different laws.
Originally posted by Joesaphat:
"The physics of the natural world are God's creation, and as alterable by him as anything else which he has made.'
Not sure I believe this but if this is so why create an eternal form of life that requires the constant suspension and alteration of the laws he made?
quote:How does that fit, in your mind, with Anglican Brat's affirmation:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joesaphat:
[qb]No. I happen to believe in the resurrection. I just don't think it's a material thing.
quote:I mean that the risen body of Christ is made of matter, stuff, particles... like God, the angels etc.
I don't believe that the Resurrection was a metaphor, that it only occurred in the minds of the disciples or that it was only "Jesus lives through his message."
quote:Love.This.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I can just imagine this. So they're lulling around in their barrack on Sunday morning, and this guy they crucified two days ago (they remember Him because of all those crazy women around) walks in naked as a jaybird: "would you terribly mind giving those back to me?" Dumbstruck, they hand Him over the package, stammering "o-… of course sir". Minutes after He left, they're still standing still, staring at the emptiness in front of them with enormous eyes.
Lamb Chopped: He thinks maybe Jesus popped into the soldiers' barracks and politely asked for them back
quote:Over all things, under all things;
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I would go further, that God is not within nor without, nor above nor below, but here.
quote:Exactly, it's a classic patristic and scholastic position, the most famous (and best IMO) treatise on the matter is Nicholas of Cusa's 'De li et non aliud' or 'of he who is non-other.'
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Over all things, under all things;
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I would go further, that God is not within nor without, nor above nor below, but here.
Outside all, inside all;
Within, but not enclosed;
Without, but not excluded;
Above, but not raised up;
Below, but not suppressed;
Wholly above, presiding;
Wholly beneath, sustaining;
Wholly without, embracing;
Wholly within, filling.
--Hildevert(/Hildebert) of Lavardin, 12th century
(Note: there are various versions and translations. "Inside all" isn't in the ones I've seen; but I've always added it, because the whole thing is done in opposites, so leaving out "inside all" throws the whole thing off.)
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:Been there; believed that; grew out of it.
Originally posted by hatless:
I want this insight to inform my understanding of what a person is. A person is what we only are (or become) in relationships where we recognise and respect each other and work together at the barriers and distortions which are always there. Overcoming (partially) those barriers is our self-realisation.
quote:You're imagining God as an It we touch and find. But God isn't an existent thing as with all other things we touch and find. God is always subject never object. We do not find God; God finds us. We do not touch God; God touches us. We do not imagine God; God imagines us. Before we can enter into relationship, God gifts the grace that makes the relationship and us possible.
And God should no longer be imagined as a sovereign being somewhere, but as that which we touch and find as we share in the movement of grace between us. A God as much within as above.
quote:Quite a few of the Fathers and medievals wrote poetry, Golden, lots of it, and music, and stories. I had to study them for years in my RC monastic days, I'm a bit off them too now, to be fair, but they still surprise me.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Joesaphat-
Though, for what it's worth, you and I approach things so differently that "scholastic and patristic" would put me off it, if I hadn't fallen in love with it years ago. (Probably in Madeleine L'Engle's "Meet The Austins".) The poem is picture, story, and concept, all in one.
