|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The resurrection and the Archbishop
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So all claims to resurrection are purely "mythical" or imitating Christ (and therefore can't be real). ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I provided a lot more nuanced and detailed discussion. Try reading it.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Talk about blinkered faith Ingo....... Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead.
Who has claimed that Christianity is purely unique due to the resurrection of Christ? Nobody.
As for "blinkered faith": Firstly, there is a factual claim, namely that no other major religion has ever made a historical resurrection its spiritual centerpiece. Far from having refuted that so far, you have not even be able to show that some minor sect somewhere-sometime has been like Christianity in this regard, much less a major religion. This is a question which can be conclusively settled (at least as far as major religions in historical times go), without any involvement of faith.
Secondly, there is the claim that Jesus Christ was the first human being ever resurrected. That is also a factual claim, and it is also a historical question. However, it is unlikely to be settled conclusively. I do believe so based on faith. However, for my faith to be "blinkered" I would have to be disregarding some salient facts. I do not believe that I'm disregarding any. In particular, I'm not aware that any other resurrection claim has remotely as much historical evidence on its side. Furthermore, I'm not aware that any other resurrection claim has remotely the consistent theological embedding, which in particular extends a major prior religious narrative quite naturally.
If you want to say that some other resurrection claim is historically and theologically more credible, then bring the evidence and argument. Otherwise my faith remains as open eyed as ever.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yes there are some people who claim to be Christian and do not subscribe to the Creeds ...
Those people include (or at least, used to) Baptists, who generally had no problem with the doctrines expressed therein, but considered themselves to be a non-credal church.
It's easy to consider the Creeds the benchmark when they are part of our practice, but they aren't quite as widespread among Protestant groups as liturgical Christians often think.
Key point for this thread is the agreement as to the content of the creeds. Our lot in Newfrontiers are generally unfamiliar with the creeds but if you quoted most of the content they'd be fine with it. Creeds are handy summaries - it's the content, rather than the form, that's decisive.
Actually, during the main Graham Kendrick heyday, especially the March for Jesus period (87-89 IIRC), non-creedal churches may not have RECITED it - but they bloody well SANG it if We Believe was on the running order.
And what about Petra's track Creed?
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Evensong - this was pretty standard stuff when I was studying 30 years ago (not to put it down because of that), and it's certainly helpful in understanding the way the resurrection appearances are described.
That is interesting to know.
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Talk about blinkered faith Ingo....... Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead.
Who has claimed that Christianity is purely unique due to the resurrection of Christ? Nobody.
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Among other things, the resurrection serves as a key marker: "this God, not any of the others". It is a demonstration of Divine power and support: listen to this Jesus Christ - the one Person who did what cannot be done.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But anyhow, for the record, it is my opinion that only Jesus rose from the dead (or, perhaps better, that He was the first to rise from the dead) and for those who believe this as I do, it is the key event that identified Him as the one true God. This does not exclude others from claiming a resurrection - falsely, of course, in my opinion.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
Because it doesn't read credible biblical theologians. Jesus was not a Platonist, and even C.S. Lewis is only a neo-Platonist.
Now back to the thread. It's not often I find myself in bed with IngoB and Mudfrog. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Evensong - this was pretty standard stuff when I was studying 30 years ago (not to put it down because of that), and it's certainly helpful in understanding the way the resurrection appearances are described.
That is interesting to know.
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
Maybe because it allows a vague cop-out in the face of challenge by those whose axiomatic basis won't allow a physical understanding to the resurrection of the body. We can do Origen's perfect spheres or whatever we like instead.
Although if you look in any of my churchyards you'll find plenty of evidence that popular undertanding does take seriously a physical continuity. Both the inscriptions on most memorials and the junk that some people like to leave on the graves suggest exactly that.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why then, does popular Christianity resemble the Platonic understanding of eternal life?
Because it doesn't read credible biblical theologians. Jesus was not a Platonist, and even C.S. Lewis is only a neo-Platonist.
I was under the impression it was the responsibility of ministers to read credible biblical theologians and educate the masses. There is a discrepancy here.
If the masses believe in a platonic version of eternal life whose fault is it? Don't we masses have to listen to endless sermons?
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Maybe because it allows a vague cop-out in the face of challenge by those whose axiomatic basis won't allow a physical understanding to the resurrection of the body.
So most ministers don't believe in the resurrection of the bible?
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
Although if you look in any of my churchyards you'll find plenty of evidence that popular undertanding does take seriously a physical continuity. Both the inscriptions on most memorials and the junk that some people like to leave on the graves suggest exactly that.
Well then you are to be commended for hitting home a unique resurrection.
I'll assume therefore that those of your flock don't believe they are currently in heaven enjoying eternal life with God.
They are "asleep" or "waiting" for the general resurrection when Christ comes again (two thousand years late - but what the hell). Only then will they be judged to eternal life or eternal damnation.
the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Right?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So most ministers don't believe in the resurrection of the bible?
That isn't what I said. I didn't apply it to anyone in particular; I simply suggested that where people used a Greek 'spiritual' understanding of resurrection that might be the reason why.
quote:
Well then you are to be commended for hitting home a unique resurrection.
I don't think so. That seems to be already in their 'folk' consciousness. In the same way, friends who work in Africa find that people brought up to ancestor worship have a ready understanding of physical resurrection. There isn't a huge difference in the real attitudes found in a considerable number of our local population. I would hesitate to extrapolate to the whole of the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that a large proportion either believe or would like to believe the same.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So most ministers don't believe in the resurrection of the bible?
That isn't what I said. I didn't apply it to anyone in particular; I simply suggested that where people used a Greek 'spiritual' understanding of resurrection that might be the reason why.
But the question I asked you was why popular Christianity believed in a Platonist understanding of resurrection. And you said it was a cop out.
Therefore it must be assumed that most people are taught the cop out version because that is what they believe.
Unless of course the run of the mill Christian reads Plato?
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Well then you are to be commended for hitting home a unique resurrection.
I don't think so. That seems to be already in their 'folk' consciousness. In the same way, friends who work in Africa find that people brought up to ancestor worship have a ready understanding of physical resurrection. There isn't a huge difference in the real attitudes found in a considerable number of our local population. I would hesitate to extrapolate to the whole of the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me to find that a large proportion either believe or would like to believe the same.
Bishop NT Wright seems to affirm the platonic view is the common view. And he is English.
In Australia, at least in my circles, the Platonist view is the common view.
I'm curious as to why that is if ministers of the faith are commonly taught the Jewish view.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
p.s. More proof that the Platonist view is the dominant view: check out NJA's question on the suicide thread.
Apparently the soul can progress without the body.
Platonist. Not Jewish or Christian.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
But Evensong, doesn't what you're saying presume that Christians get all their understanding from their ministers and that they remember accurately everything their ministers teach them?
Firstly, I'd imagine many Christians pick up ideas from all over the place: books, magazines, DVDs, CDs, something somebody once said to them, The God Channel etc., teaching at Christian festivals and the like... the list goes on and it all becomes a huge melting pot from which they (should say we, 'cos this includes me entirely!) pluck and vaguely remember bits and pieces.
Secondly, most preachers have at some point had that experience of someone in the congregation saying how much they appreciated the sermon/homily and then quoting something that the preacher never once said. It doesn't get stored in our minds verbatim so often, and it all gets mixed in with that big molten flow of stuff in our heads and quite often comes out as something different.
I think us preachers have to be careful what we preach and yeah, I get annoyed if I hear preachers proclaiming the Platonic view of resurrection that you mention. But (trying to avoid being too self-defensive), I don't think it's entirely our fault.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I already said - magazines, books, CDs, DVDs, some vague idea of "going to heaven when we die" that's as much taken from general culture as it is from any reading of the Bible (films etc.). And yes, probably preachers who, for whatever reason, have got it wrong - either 'cos they were never taught it in the first place, or 'cos they were and found a different explanation or description that, to them, was more compelling.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bishop NT Wright seems to affirm the platonic view is the common view. And he is English.
IF I were convinced that bishops have a better understanding of what people in these communities believe, and IF you were not referring me to a quotation from a secondary source on a limited aspect of an interview, I would be inclined to prolong the discussion.
I think you'll get a better view of what people actually believe by looking at their funeral and burial practices - what they like to hear, and what they actually take seriously when the chips are down.
And don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't. They think things through (at whatever level), discuss them among themselves, and come up with something that makes sense to them.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't.
According to some posts on the 'Preaching Notes' thread nobody remembers any sermons anyway ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
It would be interesting to know if some of the folk who accuse preachers of brainwashing and indoctrinating their congregations with sermons, telling them what to think and do, overlap with those who also say that sermons are never remembered or paid attention to, anyway.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It would be interesting to know if some of the folk who accuse preachers of brainwashing and indoctrinating their congregations with sermons, telling them what to think and do, overlap with those who also say that sermons are never remembered or paid attention to, anyway.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
If we have any effect, it's through our relationships with people - which include the teaching and preaching roles, but are not limited to them.
And, in relation to the OP, it's the continuing witness to a physical relationship with Jesus after the resurrection (he is touched; he eats with the disciples) that lays a basis for the faith in the resurrection of the body.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Alex Cockell. You rightly said "Actually, during the main Graham Kendrick heyday, especially the March for Jesus period (87-89 IIRC), non-creedal churches may not have RECITED it - but they bloody well SANG it if We Believe was on the running order."
But my crowd don't sing it now. Most of 'em couldn't name one creed let alone tell you what's in them. That doesn't make us heterodox, but we are the poorer for it IMHO.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
[popular Christianity] allows a vague cop-out in the face of challenge by those whose axiomatic basis won't allow a physical understanding to the resurrection of the body.
This comes back to where the value in Christianity resides. Is it in the preservation of pre-Enlightenment axioms? Do they have some intrinsic value, even though either superceded or shown to be false in any context except religion? Or is the value in the biblical stories and communities that embody their wisdom in the light of axioms that reflect present-day knowledge and mindsets.
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
++++Rowan is one of those rare individuals who has the grace to make all his interlocutors appear dignified and commodious. In many ways that in itself is proof of grace.
I don't think anyone disputes Rowan's grace in his public dealings. What is being called into question is his judgement, and the wisdom if not the ethical basis for how he's gone about implementing some of his policies.
He may have remained graceful all day while he persuaded Jeffrey John to turn down the post of bishop. He remained graceful while he manipulated the mood of General Synod in order to have the Anglican Covenant forwarded to the C of E dioceses, and may have gracefully instructed the C of E heirarchy to subvert due process by only presenting the case for adoption.
++++Grace is not the be all and end all of being Archbishop of Canterbury.
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't. They think things through (at whatever level), discuss them among themselves, and come up with something that makes sense to them.
I couldn't agree more.
[ 14. April 2012, 16:03: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
There seem to be a few places where it's bold and shouldn't be and I think I've missed a couple of spellings. Apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Susan Doris:
How do you decide whether a question is silly?
When the questions are based on complete obliviousness to the fact any intelligent person could possibly have a different worldview than you do.[/QB
If you choose to hold that opinion, then of course I cannot stop you.
quote:
...... When you've asked the same basic question in the past, received an answer, and failed to engage meaningfully with the answer to received.
Okay, fair comment! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) There is no way I can keep a record of my responses on any particular subject, so cannot refer to them. It is, therefore, quite likely that when a similar topic arises, my opinions will be similar.
quote:
... When they smugly assume the validity of philosophical system rejected 70 years ago.
You are of course free to choose to ascribe smugness to me and/or my opinions. Yes, I am a confident person, but smug? No.
quote:
originally posted by Susan Doris:
I would be interested to know why you think I should agree with other's explanations that what I say is flawed?
[QUOTE]I don't. You make a bold assertions and generalizations that you assume are common sense ...
Well, yes, I do think my views are common sense!! However, one of the great benefits I have found from joining in forums for the last six or severn years is that I hope I have improved and added to my what I think of as common sense, thanks to reading others' views.
quote:
...which only the stupid and mentally fragile could deny.
The experience of being demeaned, being told I was stupid, etc during my 20s decided me, I would not do that to others. On message boards, I assume - and correct me if I'm wrong here - that members contribute as independent adults.
quote:
Others question your bold assertions and generalizations giving you reasons why you are wrong.
Surely that should read 'why others think you are wrong'?
quote:
At this point, I expect one of two things. One, say you made an unwise assertion and false generalization ...
Presumably that is in the opinion of the person responding? to my posts, or who are reading
quote:
...then refrain from making them in the future. Two, continue argue for your bold assertion and generalization be refuting the arguments against them.
I would never claim to be a good, competent or experienced debater. I very much enjoy reading all other opinions and hope that some might find some interest in mine.
quote:
... Instead, you go with choice three. Ask your friends if you are right. Get their reassurance you were correct. Restate bold generalization and assertion while basically ignoring the content of what anybody else said to the contrary.
I consider I am very fortunate to have good friends whose opinions I respect and value, and which both agree or disagree with mine! I would imagine you too ask friends about what they think, and possibly, if you like what they have to say, include something of these views in your posts sometimes? It's similar to looking up reference books really, only more interesting.
quote:
originally posted by Susan Doris:
Is there a guideline against which you assess whether what I say is, or is not, discussion or debate?
[QUOTE]Debate does not follow the format below.
Person A states a position.
Person B offers a rebuttal of Person A's proposition
Person A asks friends if Person A's original proposition was correct
Person A ignores Person B's rebuttal
Here is how debate looks...
Person A states a position
Person B offers a rebuttal
Person A addresses rebuttal
Person B responds and so on
See, we have an exchange of ideas between two people arguing in good faith. Both sides can offer evidence to support their case. However,...
I think you wIll find it pretty hard to find a post of mine where I have said I was debating. Friendly discussion and interesting expressions of views are what I like.
quote:
... if both sides don't agree on what is evidence, then the focus has to be what counts as evidence. Chances are Person B will not accept the opinions of Person A's anonymous friends as evidence for Person B being ignorant, stupid, or mentally fragile.
The use of these last three adjectives I do object to. I've never taken a thread to Hell - definitely not my style - and I don't intend to start now, but if you can find any of my posts where I have used those words about people, then please let me know.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Dave Marshall. Your last post prompted a question: What happens when we die?
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
Just so! We will remain as memories in the minds of those still living who knew and thought well about us - or even not so wel!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
Just so! We will remain as memories in the minds of those still living who knew and thought well about us - or even not so wel!
Now here's a thought Susan. Can you remember the name of your great grandfather?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What happens when we die?
I think God welcomes home whatever part of us is compatible with eternity.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You are but dust and to dust you shall return.
Just so! We will remain as memories in the minds of those still living who knew and thought well about us
I think it's more than that.
If we get past the idea that history is a block of time through which we move, and see reality as simply the now that results from an interaction between all "creators" and the now that has just past, our involvement each instant in this life becomes literally part of the process that directly determines (to some small degree) the future of the universe.
We don't just "live on" human memories. Every atom our choices affect are irreversibly influenced, as is every atom those atoms subsequently influence, and so on. Apply chaos theory and I suspect we cannot exclude the possibility that a choice of ours may cause, "create", something on the scale of a new universe in a dimension we cannot imagine.
Here it seems ideas both of God as a supernatural being doing the creating (theism), and of the universe as a mechanical system (atheism), get lost. Each has an ideological commitment to oppose the other that spills over into rejection of a philosophy, a metaphysical model, that is neither.
But it can be difficult to explain...
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Though it is the be all and end all of being God.
Only for a certain literally-personal way of thinking about God. It doesn't work for me.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
But Evensong, doesn't what you're saying presume that Christians get all their understanding from their ministers and that they remember accurately everything their ministers teach them?
Translating the Bible into English, that's where it all went wrong. The buggers can read the thing for themselves and get it only half right.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Now here's a thought Susan. Can you remember the name of your great grandfather?
I can only remember one grandfather let alone a great-grandfather! as the other died when my father was 9, but that one must have had the same surname as my father!
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If we get past the idea that history is a block of time through which we move, and see reality as simply the now that results
I think I agree with this, but the phrase 'block of time] sounds as if both 'ends' are closed, , but I think I'd say that since the universe started, we have arrived at this moment and continue moment by moment; i.e. the next moment does not exist already. Hope that makes sense!
quote:
...from an interaction between all "creators" and the now that has just past, our involvement each instant in this life becomes literally part of the process that directly determines (to some small degree) the future of the universe. We don't just "live on" human memories. Every atom our choices affect are irreversibly influenced, as is every atom those atoms subsequently influence, and so on.
That all sounds about right to me.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
I already said - magazines, books, CDs, DVDs, some vague idea of "going to heaven when we die" that's as much taken from general culture as it is from any reading of the Bible (films etc.). And yes, probably preachers who, for whatever reason, have got it wrong - either 'cos they were never taught it in the first place, or 'cos they were and found a different explanation or description that, to them, was more compelling.
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
And don't assume that people just take in and repeat what is preached/taught to them. They don't. They think things through (at whatever level), discuss them among themselves, and come up with something that makes sense to them.
I guess I'm curious as to when the Platonic version of life after death took place. It seems to me the early church did not defeat Gnosticism after all.
I reckon the idea took over very early in the church.
Especially when Christ failed to return as promised.
Why?
Because believing your loved ones to be happy and alive with God in heaven is more pleasant than believing them to be "on hold" until Christ comes again.
Who wants to be asleep or on hold for two thousand years?
So I reckon this idea of Jewish Eschatology stuff and a physical resurrection stuff has only come back into popularity recently with the Historical Jesus stuff and our new interest in second temple Judaism.
[ 15. April 2012, 07:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity.
Whereas you seem to believe it is.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
It tickles my fancy that this thread is taking much longer than the Resurrection did.
What was the joke about the theologians and the light?
Or was it a bulb? Or switch?
Amazing, a great religion is founded on a simple truth and its members are still virtually 'in the dark'.
Or do they just like arguing?
Who will have 'the ultimate explanation'? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cara
Shipmate
# 16966
|
Posted
Evensong said:
Because believing your loved ones to be happy and alive with God in heaven is more pleasant than believing them to be "on hold" until Christ comes again.
Indeed!
I have always thought it very important and interesting that Jesus said to the "good thief" :
I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.
(I'm quoting from memory, lazy, sorry, but close enough I think?)
Some interpreters however say that we read it wrong and it should be, "I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."
!!! A comma making an absolutely colossal difference.
Is there any ambiguity in the original Greek? Greek scholars?
If jesus said this to the good thief, it implies one goes straight to Paradise (or, um, the Other Place??) after death.....
And yet, as has been said here, other New Testament writings imply that intermediate state and a wait until the return of Christ and the Great Resurrection....
Confusing. Humanly speaking, of course, as Evensong says, we far prefer the promise Jesus made to the thief...that it will be paradise right away, even today.
Cara
--------------------
Pondering.
Posts: 898 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Is there any ambiguity in the original Greek?
Yes.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity. Whereas you seem to believe it is.
I think at least for people other than you, we have now established sufficiently what my actual opinion is and that it is entirely reasonable given available historical data.
I hope you realize, by the way, that the traditional understanding of the soul in the Church is not really "Platonic". If one has to involve the Greeks, then one would have to say that it is "Aristotelian". (Except that Aristotle himself would not have said what the Church says about the soul. But his philosophical framework eventually was employed to formalize the Church's understanding.) And that theology does not require that souls lie dormant after death for many thousands of years till bodily resurrection. I do not think that such "freezing of the dead" can maintain personal continuity, which is based on temporal life (this is basically the same as the philosophical "identity vs. teleportation" problem). Instead the traditional "Aristotelian" picture argues for a "handicapped" existence after death, in which we subsist transiently in our intellectual principle alone - which after all is the reason why we are immortal and for example cats are not - until given back a resurrection body to attain the fullness of human life once more. This is fully compatible with the practice of the faithful "on the ground" (apart from some unfortunate victims of the Reformation), who certainly do not imagine that they speak to some kind of eternal answering machine in their intercessory prayers to the dead. Lex orendi, lex credendi - as we pray, so we believe.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity.
Whereas you seem to believe it is.
The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is certainly very different to the immortality of the soul being touted by most religions of the era and area in which Christianity was born, and was indeed anathema to most religionists of the time. I would like to hear some examples of other religions that propose resurrection of a carnal being in the way the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is carefully portrayed by the gospel writers, or in the way the Christians spoke of their own expectation of resurrection.
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Really? I must have been fooled by these comments:
Huh? Nothing in those comments of mine contradicts your statement "Christianity may very well be unique but it's not purely in the fact that Christ rose from the dead," i.e, there are other things that are unique about Christianity as well, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, which its denial of both Modalism and Tritheism.
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity.
Whereas you seem to believe it is.
The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is certainly very different to the immortality of the soul being touted by most religions of the era and area in which Christianity was born, and was indeed anathema to most religionists of the time. I would like to hear some examples of other religions that propose resurrection of a carnal being in the way the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is carefully portrayed by the gospel writers, or in the way the Christians spoke of their own expectation of resurrection.
Other than the "people of the book", i.e. the 3 great monotheistic religions, the only one I am remotely aware of is Zoroastrianism.
I have seen it said that resurrection belief originally arose within Judaism during the exile, therefore it is quite likely that Jewish thought took up this theme from Zoroastrianism. However I have also seen it said that there is no evidence of resurrection belief within Zoroastrianism till considerably later than in Judaism, and if any transfer was involved it was likely the other way around, as rabbinical thought seems to have ben centred on the faithfulness of God. I'm no expert and can only report these two POV's.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
the phrase 'block of time' sounds as if both 'ends' are closed, but I think I'd say that since the universe started, we have arrived at this moment and continue moment by moment; i.e. the next moment does not exist already. Hope that makes sense!
Yes, it does. The key feature of the now-focused model follows from exactly the point you make about the 'block of time' model needing to be open-ended. The traditional Christian view is that it's precisely not open-ended; the assumption is it will end (prior to judgement day or whenever). The resurrection idea is therefore required in order to imagine the 'soul' surviving physical death for that judgement and beyond.
If now and the "creators" are all ultimate reality is, and the process by which now is created has no beginning or end, resurrection becomes artificial and redundant. Our "creative essence" is inherently and naturally eternal. Resurrection myths, and whether Christianity's myth is unique, become of academic and historical interest only, whether or not we choose to relate to the "primary creator" as God or merely an unidentified first cause of existence.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I have always thought it very important and interesting that Jesus said to the "good thief" :
I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.
(I'm quoting from memory, lazy, sorry, but close enough I think?)
Some interpreters however say that we read it wrong and it should be, "I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise."
!!! A comma making an absolutely colossal difference.
Is there any ambiguity in the original Greek? Greek scholars?
Punctuation wasn't present in the original Greek text.
The words are these (comma included but is a later insertion):
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἀμήν σοι λέγω, σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ.
Woodenly and literally (word for word in order) it goes like this (please excuse tenses those of you that are legends at Greek).
And he said to him amen to you I say today with me you will be in paradise
Bishop Tom Wright speaks to this very question in the previous link I quoted in Time magazine. For those of you interested in this question I seriously suggest you read it. It's a great article.
quote:
Wright: There is Luke 23, where Jesus says to the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." But in Luke, we know first of all that Christ himself will not be resurrected for three days, so "paradise" cannot be a resurrection. It has to be an intermediate state.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
Is there any reason to believe that Christ didn't stop in briefly to see his Dad before going back to work?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Dave Marshall
Thank you for response - I don't think there's anything I disagree with there, but I'll have another look later on to make sure!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Bad phrasing on my part perhaps but I meant resurrection was not unique to Christianity. Whereas you seem to believe it is.
I think at least for people other than you, we have now established sufficiently what my actual opinion is and that it is entirely reasonable given available historical data.
Not at all. I gave you instances of "historical" resurrection and you just rejected it cos nobody paid any attention and no one knew about therefore it must not be real.
As to "available" historical data on "myths" - quite so. We don't know. Which is why your insistence on Christ being the only one to rise from the dead is pure conjecture.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that theology does not require that souls lie dormant after death for many thousands of years till bodily resurrection. I do not think that such "freezing of the dead" can maintain personal continuity, which is based on temporal life (this is basically the same as the philosophical "identity vs. teleportation" problem). Instead the traditional "Aristotelian" picture argues for a "handicapped" existence after death, in which we subsist transiently in our intellectual principle alone - which after all is the reason why we are immortal and for example cats are not - until given back a resurrection body to attain the fullness of human life once more. This is fully compatible with the practice of the faithful "on the ground" (apart from some unfortunate victims of the Reformation), who certainly do not imagine that they speak to some kind of eternal answering machine in their intercessory prayers to the dead. Lex orendi, lex credendi - as we pray, so we believe.
I don't think that understanding is biblical. I think the bible sees the interim period as sleep or rest.
Praying to the dead saints doesn't make much sense in this vision of resurrection.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
The Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body is certainly very different to the immortality of the soul being touted by most religions of the era and area in which Christianity was born, and was indeed anathema to most religionists of the time. I would like to hear some examples of other religions that propose resurrection of a carnal being in the way the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is carefully portrayed by the gospel writers, or in the way the Christians spoke of their own expectation of resurrection.
Was this comment aimed at me Zappa?
I said as much to Remarius on the previous page.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
There's hints in the NT that the 'intermediate state' will be conscious existence. This would certainly be consistent with the OT view of Sheol. I like to think of it like this - Jesus's resurrection body was fit for heaven and earth (he frequented both). Our resurrection bodies will be the same (or at least fit for the new earth) whereas the intermediate state needs some way for consciousness to relate to a heavenly existence (with Christ).
And if we 'sleep' until Christ returns - have you seen Inception Evensong? What a blast that could be ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
@Dave Marshall. You got me wondering. What makes you think the hope in life after death isn't a myth?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The key feature of the now-focused model follows from exactly the point you make about the 'block of time' model needing to be open-ended. The traditional Christian view is that it's precisely not open-ended; the assumption is it will end (prior to judgement day or whenever). The resurrection idea is therefore required in order to imagine the 'soul' surviving physical death for that judgement and beyond.
If now and the "creators" are all ultimate reality is, and the process by which now is created has no beginning or end, resurrection becomes artificial and redundant. Our "creative essence" is inherently and naturally eternal. Resurrection myths, and whether Christianity's myth is unique, become of academic and historical interest only, whether or not we choose to relate to the "primary creator" as God or merely an unidentified first cause of existence.
Looking at this from a worldly point of view, our concept of time is inextricably linked with the miniscule part of the universe we're aware of, and would end as we know it should the physical world end, as in the projected judgement day of apocalyptic literature.
Looking at it from an 'open-ended time and universe' point of view we may allow imagination free reign, and produce our own literature. Resurrection may be as meaningful as skin regeneration or as complete transformation into pure creativity.
Perhaps both or neither ways of looking at it are anywhere near the truth.
However, we know by observation that what we do and say impacts upon the world and its people both spiritually and physically. We know that once an event has taken place it can never be altered, and although its chain of reaction might be steered its impetus will continue.
Whether or not there will be any continuity or revival of consciousness for us as individuals, we remain fully responsible for what we do and say. I suggest that the act of reconciliation with God the Creator brings new positive life out of a harmful action or word, to counteract its chain flows. The resurrection idea is vital.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What makes you think the hope in life after death isn't a myth?
I went to give a simple answer to this but I honestly don't what you're asking. Do you mean the hope isn't a myth? I haven't said it is. The hope is obviously real for many people.
Or do you mean life after death isn't a myth? If so, what makes you think I think it's not? I haven't said anything about "life after death". Whatever part of us might continue beyond physical death cannot be life in any sense we can imagine, just a continuation of our "creative essence", whatever that might mean.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I suggest that the act of reconciliation with God the Creator brings new positive life out of a harmful action or word, to counteract its chain flows.
What makes you think reconciliation with God is needed, or that life's "chain flows" need counteracting?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What makes you think the hope in life after death isn't a myth?
I went to give a simple answer to this but I honestly don't what you're asking. Do you mean the hope isn't a myth? I haven't said it is. The hope is obviously real for many people.
Or do you mean life after death isn't a myth? If so, what makes you think I think it's not? I haven't said anything about "life after death". Whatever part of us might continue beyond physical death cannot be life in any sense we can imagine, just a continuation of our "creative essence", whatever that might mean.
Trying to make sense of your answer to my original question of what you think happens when we die. What's the basis for your hope (however slim) that some "part of us might continue after physical death."?
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
