Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christ's Resurrection
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From Kaplan Corday: Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: From Kaplan Corday: Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
That's just not true. The evangelical hymn book has many many songs and choruses about the resurrection!
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Kaplan Corday: Secondly, I find it difficult to understand why the risen Christ revealed himself to such a small number of witnesses.
Why did he not appear publicly, even globally, if he wanted humanity to believe in him?
Perhaps it was because the kind of belief that is based solely on indisputable evidence is not the kind of belief he wants from us? Because the kind of belief he would rather have is the kind that says "I believe that the things you said are true and good and worth adopting as a guide to how I should try to live my life"? Because he wanted our focus to be on following his teachings more than on the accuracy of our faith?
-------------------- A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: quote: Originally posted by Gee D: From Kaplan Corday: Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
That's just not true. The evangelical hymn book has many many songs and choruses about the resurrection!
Whilst this is true, my experience tallies with that of Gee D - whilst the resurrection and ascension are sung about (well, the resurrection anyway) and a pretty literal view of it is a significant Shibboleth, it didn't, again, IME, get a great deal of theological significance attached to it - and the ascension got even less. My wishy-washy liberal not a proper Christian theology actually attaches a lot of significance to both, even though I wouldn't sign on any dotted lines about the historic nature of either event.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Raptor Eye: Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
As one in the "hopes as much as believes" category, I'd consider it a very helpful move.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: quote: Originally posted by Raptor Eye: Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
As one in the "hopes as much as believes" category, I'd consider it a very helpful move.
ITSM - speaking as a once fairly successful salesman - that any god who wants people to believe in him but won't do anything to encourage those who can't is a bit of a numpty and definitely not going to be giving a thank-you speech on the rostrum at the annual god-of-the-year gala dinner and awards ceremony.
-------------------- The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them... W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: quote: Originally posted by Gee D: From Kaplan Corday: Here are two of many things about it which strike me as a theological conservative.
First, I can think of a number of otherwise relatively liberal scholars who, perhaps surprisingly, believe in the resurrection while jettisoning other orthodox articles of faith.
Many evangelicals seem to stop on Good Friday and not make the essential journey on to Easter Sunday and Ascension Day. The victory over death shown by the Resurrection made manifest on Easter, and then the reconciling of the creation to the Creator on Ascension are the vital elements of the Incarnation. Or so it seems to us.
That's just not true. The evangelical hymn book has many many songs and choruses about the resurrection!
Whilst this is true, my experience tallies with that of Gee D - whilst the resurrection and ascension are sung about (well, the resurrection anyway) and a pretty literal view of it is a significant Shibboleth, it didn't, again, IME, get a great deal of theological significance attached to it - and the ascension got even less. My wishy-washy liberal not a proper Christian theology actually attaches a lot of significance to both, even though I wouldn't sign on any dotted lines about the historic nature of either event.
Well I'm not sure what kind of evangelical churches you're attending but I respect what you've found there.
In my view, especially within our kind of evangelicalism, is that the resurrection is paramount! He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today! He walks with me and talks me with me Along life's narrow way. He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart; you ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!
I thank you
-------------------- "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: quote: Originally posted by Raptor Eye: Jesus doesn't disappear as soon as he is recognised in the Bible stories. He eats, and shows his wounds.
The living Christ does still show himself to some people today, not as a physical body but in visions and through people. He did everything he had to do, and still calls us to follow him. He sent the Holy Spirit to continue to help those who want to do so, through the generations.
What would be the point of physically returning again now? To prove himself to those who don't believe? Why should he? Would it work?
As one in the "hopes as much as believes" category, I'd consider it a very helpful move.
I am also one who hopes and believes - but mostly doubts these days.
I wouldn't want Jesus to come again 'tho. That would remove any need for faith, it would also mean we'd have to stop thinking through this faith thing for ourselves.
Either that, or we'd just crucify him again anyway
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by HughWillRidmee: ITSM - speaking as a once fairly successful salesman - that any god who wants people to believe in him but won't do anything to encourage those who can't is a bit of a numpty and definitely not going to be giving a thank-you speech on the rostrum at the annual god-of-the-year gala dinner and awards ceremony.
God has done more than enough to encourage and invite everyone, particularly through the life, death and resurrection of Christ. He'll be the one hosting the gala dinner when Christ does return and the world as we know it will end, with no more tears etc.
ISTM that unless God brings this forward so that there's no more evil or pain in the world now, some will say they can't believe.
-------------------- Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Raptor Eye: quote: Originally posted by HughWillRidmee: ITSM - speaking as a once fairly successful salesman - that any god who wants people to believe in him but won't do anything to encourage those who can't is a bit of a numpty and definitely not going to be giving a thank-you speech on the rostrum at the annual god-of-the-year gala dinner and awards ceremony.
God has done more than enough to encourage and invite everyone, particularly through the life, death and resurrection of Christ. He'll be the one hosting the gala dinner when Christ does return and the world as we know it will end, with no more tears etc.
ISTM that unless God brings this forward so that there's no more evil or pain in the world now, some will say they can't believe.
Your final sentence, ISTM, implies that you think that some of us choose not to believe (but could believe if we really, really tried), or that we really do believe but refuse to admit it. If you think thus, either, you are wrong. On the one hand I could no more kid myself that I believe in a deity (yours or anyone else’s) than kid myself that I’m twenty-one again and on the other - I used to believe, I know the difference.
If I could make myself believe (and I can’t) how would I choose which deity to follow? Your convictions are no more compelling than the beliefs of those who worship(ped) any of the thousands of deities that have been claimed, often with fervour equal to or greater than yours, by present and past generations.
And, come to think of it, why hasn’t God ended pain etc.. How would you feel if a loved one had a painful, debilitating and ultimately terminal disease and you were told that a simple cure existed - developed, tested, approved, produced and ready to go - but that the patent holder had decided not to release the cure for a couple of thousand years?
Perhaps numpty was a tad weak? [ 29. August 2013, 23:40: Message edited by: HughWillRidmee ]
-------------------- The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them... W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Yes, as someone who really wants to believe more strongly than I do, I find the implications of that last sentence rather insulting.
-------------------- Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Raptor Eye: ISTM that unless God brings this forward so that there's no more evil or pain in the world now, some will say they can't believe.
What this says is that some people imply that they could not believe in God unless the world and the people in it were perfect now. It neither says nor implies that there are some people who could make themselves believe now if they really tried, nor that some pretend not to believe.
As to why God hasn't brought the world as we know it to an end yet: I can't know the mind and reasoning of God. There are Biblical implications that God is patient with us and is giving us the time we need to accept his good will. I have had loved ones die, and have another with a debilitating terminal illness. Death and disease are part and parcel of the imperfect world I live in as an imperfect human being. While I would like heaven now, I also appreciate the opportunity to try to share and grow what's good and alleviate or change what's not good while I can.
-------------------- Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by HughWillRidmee If I could make myself believe (and I can’t) how would I choose which deity to follow. Your convictions are no more compelling than the beliefs of those who worship(ped) any of the thousands of deities that have been claimed, often with fervour equal to or greater than yours, by present and past generations.
Truth is, of course not based on strength of devotion. As for the idea that the claims of Christianity are no more compelling than those of other religions, I assume that you have analysed all these claims and assessed their logical coherence? Or is it a case of "if a claim involves belief in the existence of a supernatural dimension, then it must be inherently irrational"? If this assumption is not the reason for your argument, then I find it quite extraordinary that such a diverse set of claims should all be considered exactly equal in terms of their status of being uncompelling and implausible.
Here's an example: does love require a relationship in order to exist and have any kind of validity? Or can love exist in the absence of any kind of object of that love? Either one or other position is true. To say that both are equally implausible is absurd. And yet this idea separates the Christian (Trinitarian) and the Islamic ideas of God, with specific reference to His love. To dismiss both ideas on the basis that one is no more compelling than the other is really very strange thinking indeed!
Of course, I suppose you could say that these two ideas are equally implausible when referring to God, since the idea of 'God' is considered implausible. On the other hand, one of these ideas is more compelling than the other when limited to human interaction. If this is the case, then your objection to different theistic ideas is not an objection to those ideas at all, but to theism in general. This is rather devious, because you argue that if you did choose to believe in God, then you would be unable to decide which God to worship, because all theistic claims are not compelling. That context therefore rules out the argument that all theistic claims are implausible simply because they are theistic, because you are assuming a hypothetical scenario in which you decide to be a theist (and therefore, for the sake of argument, assume theism to be true).
If you have an objection to a particular theistic claim, then let's hear it and then discuss the concept on its own merits. If your objection to all theistic claims is simply because they are theistic, then the discussion is not really about particular theistic ideas at all, but about theism in general. Therefore the discussion becomes a philosophical and epistemological debate about naturalism vs. supernaturalism.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here's an example: does love require a relationship in order to exist and have any kind of validity? Or can love exist in the absence of any kind of object of that love? Either one or other position is true.
Clearly a person can 'love' in some sense Justice, for example, in the sense of being committed to it and wholly believing in it's ultimate importance. Justice is 'some' kind of object I guess since you can discuss and describe it (nominalists may disagree) as well as should examples which embody it.
If you love someone who is absent, does that count as a relationship? And if you discover, much later that the person has died did your relationship cease to be 'valid' as soon as the person died, though you still believed them alive?
I'm not clear of the difference between 'valid' and 'invalid' in loving relationships. Are you saying love has to be reciprocated to be valid or what? You may well be right in what you say, I just don't understand it. [ 05. September 2013, 17:46: Message edited by: que sais-je ]
-------------------- "controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|