|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What historical information could make you lose faith?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
On the Henry VIII thing ... yes, it was more complicated than Henry VIII waking up one morning and thinking, 'Dang it! Catherine of Aragon isn't bearing me a son ... I know, I'll break with Rome so I can get a divorce ...'
Just as the Reformation in Germany was more complicated than Luther simply nailing 95 theses to a church door and saying, 'There you go ... suck on that ...'
There as Realpolitik involved in all these things.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] More seriously, is it necessarily a sign of anti-intellectualism to take a more 'supernaturalist' approach? [...]
Not at all, just to avoid robust counter-arguments. Disagree as I do, I at least respect, say, N.T. Wright for stepping up in the academy and making his case.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
And if it were proven that Henry VIII just broke with Rome to divorce his wife, goodbye Episcopal Church! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hardly. If for no other reason than that TEC is only connected to Henry's split from Rome in about the same degree that the Methodists are. Once you posit an alternate history it's hard to be certain of anything. Without reformation in England (and Scotland?), would the Lutherans have been wiped out by a united Roman Catholic opposition?
Hardly likely, from the Continental point of view the big revolution for Protestantism was in Holland, which marked a rebellion against the Spanish Empire which was the power house in Europe. It was far more bloody than England and Scotland put together.
Jengie
[removed second signature]
[ 13. November 2014, 08:29: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
What's history to do with anything? You might just as well ask an agnostic or an atheist "What historical evidence would make you accept the Athanasian Creed as true?"
In my case, I'd be half way there, in a sense, if Christians accepted that there isn't any.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Setting aside miracles and a physical resurrection is a thoroughly mainstream view in theological circles.
That's why it's best to avoid such circles like the plague.
And to think religion's gotten itself a rep for anti-intellectualism. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
There is nothing anti-intellectual about the supernatural; quite the reverse. Decrying the supernatural is simply attempting to push God into a box that she won't fit into.
God is not bound by the natural only.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
There's a balance to be had, of course, between mind and heart.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There's a balance to be had, of course, between mind and heart.
Aye, but both my mind and heart find many of the supernatural claims of traditional Christianity unlikely.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
There's a balance to be had, of course, between mind and heart.
Aye, but both my mind and heart find many of the supernatural claims of traditional Christianity unlikely.
That's something you have to work out for yourself, of course, whatever conclusion you happen to come to in the process. An all mind approach, I would argue, naturally leads to atheism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that an 'all mind' approach can lead to atheism.
But so can fundamentalism.
Lots of atheists are former fundamentalists.
Indeed, it could be argued that atheism is itself a form of fundamentalism ...
Fundamentalism of all kinds can lead to loss of faith. Fundamentalism doesn't bend but snaps when the winds blow.
Fundamentalists paint themselves into a corner from which there is no escape until the paint dries or the only option is to abandon faith entirely.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[...] Indeed, it could be argued that atheism is itself a form of fundamentalism ... [...]
It could, but it isn't. It can reasonably be argued that everyone here's an atheist (unless y'all believe in Odin, Persephone, and Ahura Mazda).
Even if theism refers only to the Trinity, by itself, it's just disbelief, it has no fundamentals. (Besides griping about Dick Dawkins' diarrhetic Twitter stream.)
Me, it's all about Loki. Tricky bastard, but never boring.
Evensong, no, the anti-intellectualism doesn't lie in believing in the supernatural, but in avoiding its critics.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
Interesting. But don't the Gospels say that the tomb was empty?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Byron ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yes, now I'd agree with you whole-heartedly about where the anti-intellectualism lies ...
Meanwhile, say one to Loki for me next time you're chatting to him ...
I'll know who to blame then the next time something tricky happens.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
Interesting. But don't the Gospels say that the tomb was empty?
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
I trust you were as forthright with your professors in seminary? [Devil]
None of my seminary professors carried croziers even though each and every single one of them acted like little Peters in their own classroom making ex cathedra statements on their pet theories and anathematizing all those who disagreed. None of my professors were Unitarians either. My NT professor wrote a book making a case for the physical resurrection of Christ. My theology professor was a die hard Trinitarian who believed heresies were a bad thing.
There was my ethics professor. He was an aging hippie. So...we took him with a grain of salt.
--------------------
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
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
False dichotomy.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.
Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.
Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
I think the idea that Jesus didn't exist would affect some symbolic or liberal Christians. It would make Christianity purely mythological, whereas for me, at any rate, religion also has to include flesh and blood. It would be too ethereal. But maybe others would find it OK.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I doubt if any possible proof of Jesus's death, or nonexistence, would be believed by =everybody=. There are, after all, there are still people who believe that Obama was born in Kenya. No proof suffices if you do not want to accept it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Byron ...
Yes, now I'd agree with you whole-heartedly about where the anti-intellectualism lies ...
Meanwhile, say one to Loki for me next time you're chatting to him ...
I'll know who to blame then the next time something tricky happens.
[tangent]
Burnt toast and knots in sewing thread (which therefore render that bit of thread unusable) are sacred to Loki. I'm far from a Lokean but I love that.
[/tangent]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
False dichotomy.
In what way?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
But is the resurrection a completely different body? Surely we wouldn't be ourselves then and nothing at all has been raised up. I would argue that the resurrection body is only new in that it has been transformed, or rather ransfigured, otherwise it is the same body.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI the customary burial practice was to lay the body on a shelf in a tomb and leave it there until there was nothing left but bones. Then the bones were put into a jar called an ossuary.
I believe the ossuary was labelled with the name of the dead person and the name of his father.
Moo
Ah yes, Yeshua bar Yosep. Such uncommon names that a box with them on must be the Jesus and Joseph of the Gospels.
Not ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 19. November 2014, 16:04: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The resurrection body is, of course, different but it is not an entirely new entity - it very much depends on the original body in the way that an ear of wheat depends on the seed.
That shouldn't be taken, however, to mean that every bit of the dead body is needed in order to construct the resurrection body.
The doctrine of the resurrection would never, ever have taken hold if the same body that Jesus was buried with was not itself raised and walked out of the tomb - the Jews with their very definate belief in the resurrection of the dead would have just turned away from a message of a spiritual resurrection; it would have been a total nonsense to them.
Any thought of trying to foist a non-corporeal resurrection on the church reveals yet another failure to understand, appreciate or honour the Jewish basis of the faith we declare.
[ 19. November 2014, 16:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Muddy, no-one is trying to "foist" a non-corporeal resurrection on anyone. Some of us, however, have varying levels of confidence in the literal truth of the physical resurrection and explore to what degree the Christian faith can withstand doubt, or even the theoretical refutation of this factor.
If you don't find it difficult to believe in a literal resurrection then perhaps you don't need to go through this sort of process, but those of us who are naturally sceptical often do. I wouldn't say that I believe in a non-corporeal resurrection, much less would I "Foist" it on anyone, but nor can I put my hand on my heart and say "absolutely I believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead leaving no bodily remains." and I have to work my faith out in the presence of that uncertainty and even scepticism.
It would be perhaps going a little far to say that the "foisting" comes from the conservative end who insist we must believe in a physical resurrection, or else give up Christianity altogether, but that's often how it feels, and gives rise to the question I've asked more than once on here - what do you want us sceptics to do? Pretend we believe things we're uncertain of, or even just don't believe? Stay in bed on Sunday mornings? Or are we to be tolerated as long as we shut up? I'm naturally grateful that this sort of exploration can no longer result in being burnt to death, of course.
[ 20. November 2014, 06:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What do you want us sceptics to do? Pretend we believe things we're uncertain of, or even just don't believe? Stay in bed on Sunday mornings? Or are we to be tolerated as long as we shut up? I'm naturally grateful that this sort of exploration can no longer result in being burnt to death, of course.
It's a good question, worthy of it's own thread.
In Church I tend to shut up unless asked, and even then I say the minimum about my doubts. I truly don't want to be difficult.
I can neither pretend to believe nor just not believe. So I skip saying/singing the bits I find impossible. Nobody notices.
On here it's different. I try to ask the questions, but am rarely satisfied with the answers. I can't believe in a God who creates, then rejects - however strong the reasons seem to be.
[ 20. November 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's often difficult to bring stuff like this up in church, and also, some people will instantly accuse you of not being a True Christian.
I used to harangue my wife about this stuff, but since she's a pagan, her replies were rather one-sided. Forums like this are indeed a useful outlet.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What do you want us sceptics to do? Pretend we believe things we're uncertain of, or even just don't believe? Stay in bed on Sunday mornings? Or are we to be tolerated as long as we shut up? I'm naturally grateful that this sort of exploration can no longer result in being burnt to death, of course.
It's a good question, worthy of it's own thread.
In Church I tend to shut up unless asked, and even then I say the minimum about my doubts. I truly don't want to be difficult.
I can neither pretend to believe nor just not believe. So I skip saying/singing the bits I find impossible. Nobody notices.
On here it's different. I try to ask the questions, but am rarely satisfied with the answers. I can't believe in a God who creates, then rejects - however strong the reasons seem to be.
That was Uranus, and he had his nuts cut off
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.
Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
If they were purely symbolic rather than based to some degree on real events (allowing for the distortions of memory), then there would be no Christianity, and probably also no Islam. There are some very powerful myths, but (e,g,) I don't see anyone starting a world religion based on Paolo Cuelho's books, or reviving the ancient Greek Gods.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
Leo, you took more than 24 hours to post your response and I'd stopped looking for one by then. Life intervened. I forgot to check back. Also, what Ad Orientem just said.
The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.
Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.
I'm certain that your own alacrity and lack of diffidence will ensure a speedy response.
[ 20. November 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If the Jesus story is not true in terms of Him being the hypostatic union through parthenogenetic conception by God the Holy Spirit and the minimal, oecumenical creeds, then we have made it ALL up. Which isn't at all credible due to the fallibility, the inconsistencies, the errors, the humanity of the Gospels and Acts. And the incredible, unbelievable, outrageous claims. Together they are not just sublimely, synergistically credible, they couldn't be more so. For them not to be true the writers would have to be the greatest and most collectively deluded geniuses of all time.
Historical disproof isn't necessary. All that's necessary is an antithesis to the thesis. I'd accept an equal antithesis, not just a superior one. Just like I'll accept oxygen in an extrasolar planetary atmosphere as proof that God didn't create life or mind.
Any one? And I'm as postmodern and deconstructed as you can get.
The greatest novel of all time will be the story that equals the divine humanity, the human divinity (the ULTIMATE act of dumbing down either way), the simplicity of Christ. Surely now is the time? What do we need to wait for? If it can be done, it can be done NOW. Here. By us.
For if the first circle of Matthew, Mark, John and Peter and James and Jude were innocently deluded and all the Marys and Marthas and other Matthews and Lazaruses and whoever were just Caravaggio vignettes in their collective delusion or even part of the innocent conspiracy of delusion, then God WAS the God of the Jews if He exists at all.
And that story is easy to rationalize away once you've done a decent job of explaining away Jesus.
Any one?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Martin60: Just like I'll accept oxygen in an extrasolar planetary atmosphere as proof that God didn't create life or mind.
Is HD 209458b good enough?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They do, but they may or may not be historical accounts and could be construed as being symbolic of the resurrection rather than factually descriptive of it.
Here's a question then - is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
If they were purely symbolic rather than based to some degree on real events (allowing for the distortions of memory), then there would be no Christianity, and probably also no Islam. There are some very powerful myths, but (e,g,) I don't see anyone starting a world religion based on Paolo Cuelho's books, or reviving the ancient Greek Gods.
While I agree with the thrust of your argument, there are plenty reviving the ancient Greek gods, and other pantheons. They (worryingly) seem to be popular with far-right/neo-Nazi groups in Europe.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No more than the Sun Le Roc, no.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What would make me lose faith?
- the verified remains of Jesus
That assumes that the body that was buried is the same as the resurrection body.
Paul thinks otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15 when he says that what is 'sown' (buried) is perishable and what is raised is imperishable - what is raised is a new creation, not contingent on the old
False dichotomy.
In what way?
Interesting how some make dogmatic assertions but, when asked to justify them, shy away.
Leo, you took more than 24 hours to post your response and I'd stopped looking for one by then. Life intervened. I forgot to check back. Also, what Ad Orientem just said.
The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.
Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.
I'm certain that your own alacrity and lack of diffidence will ensure a speedy response.
1 Cor 15:44 differentiates natural and spiritual bodies.
The former, in v. 47 is 'from the hearth' whereas the latter is from heaven.
v.50 the perishable doesn't inherit the imperishable
The seed is an analogy, not literal fact.
It all points to God creating a new body - in Jesus's case as the firstfruits of the new creation.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The false dichotomy is that you imply that either what Paul believed about the esurrection is true or that the resurrection body is substantially related to the dead body, but not both. But in fact nothing in Paul suggests that he does not think that the body in the tomb was resurrected as the Risen Christ. In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.
Paul's analogy if fact refutes your assertion that he thinks that there is no substantial relationship between the pre- and post-resurrection body/ies.
1 Cor 15:44 differentiates natural and spiritual bodies.
The former, in v. 47 is 'from the hearth' whereas the latter is from heaven.
v.50 the perishable doesn't inherit the imperishable
The seed is an analogy, not literal fact.
It all points to God creating a new body - in Jesus's case as the firstfruits of the new creation.
It all points to God creating a new body out of the old one. Obviously it's a great mystery how, but that is clearly what Paul implies.
Yes, the old one is "from the earth" and the new one from heaven - but so what? The perishable body, like the seed which "dies" in the ground, is transformed - in this case miraculously - into a gloriously imperishable body. This is what Paul believes.
Why would he use the analogy of the seed otherwise? If he meant to say there was a complete discontinuity between the old and the new bodies, why would he not choose an analogy which expressed such discontinuity instead of one which has continuity etched into it?
If you are right Paul should have been completely agnostic about whether the tomb was empty or not, or rather he should have tended towards the belief that the Lord's body should have been found, God having no further use of it. Very clearly, he shows no such indifference to the details of the resurrection account which he relates further up the same chapter.
Here's an illustrative chunk:
quote:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. [...] The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
Here the referent is the same in each paired clause: "it" (the old body) is the same "it" as the new one. This is the language of glorious transformation, not of discontinuity.
You of course can believe what you like about the resurrection, but you cannot make Paul your ally in the teeth of the textual evidence.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.
In that case, I would be fascinated to see how my natural body will be resurrected. Like my parents, I will be cremated and scattered at sea. So much fish food. How will God get my ashes out of all that sand, fish and shellfish?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In fact, his analogy of the seed that is buried in the ground and "dies" implies a relationship between the seed and the subsequent plant that involves substantial relationship - the seed becomes, is transformed into the grown plant. If you found an acorn in an old drawer that someone else claimed had grown into the mighty oak tree which is in the garden, you'd have good reason to doubt him.
In that case, I would be fascinated to see how my natural body will be resurrected. Like my parents, I will be cremated and scattered at sea. So much fish food. How will God get my ashes out of all that sand, fish and shellfish?
God is Almighty, don't you know?
[ 21. November 2014, 18:40: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In that case, I would be fascinated to see how my natural body will be resurrected. Like my parents, I will be cremated and scattered at sea. So much fish food. How will God get my ashes out of all that sand, fish and shellfish?
quote:
God is Almighty, don't you know?
Yes - but I'd love to be there see it happening!
[ 21. November 2014, 19:05: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Go read John Donne's sonnet, the one that begins "At the round earth's imagined corners blow
Your trumpets, angels, and arise, arise, You numberless infinity of souls, Arise, and to your scattered bodies go: ..."
Awesomely science fictiony picture, that.
No, seriously. The resurrection body has its "roots" in the mortal body, that's for certain, just as an oak takes its beginning from the acorn. They are connected, and in some sense they are one and the same (though you'd never know, looking at an oak, that it had anything to do with an acorn if somebody hadn't told you).
The differences are obvious. But the continuity, the one-ness, is also there. It has to be there, if you're going to use the term "resurrection" properly at all. If God simply creates a resurrected person ex nihilo--screw that, I've just illustrated my own point. If God simply creates a not-dead person ex nihilo, that is what we call creation. It's only resurrection if it used to exist, and used to be dead.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
...Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust, the dust is earth, of earth we make loam—and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.
There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes, if we were talking to the dimensionality of currently experienced by us in creation. If we are not, I suspect things get interesting.
FWIW (and its my opinion based on little evidence) I tend to imagine that resurrection implies a change in dimensionality. I also suspect that what is resurrected is not simply the person we were at the time of death. I am not sure life is cumulative rather than consecutive. Note this is highly speculative and I would not care to defend any of it but it is making you aware of other ways of conceptualizing the issue.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
is it possible for any historical information to shake the faith of a person who views the Gospel as primarily symbolic?
Doesn't Paul say something like "if Christ is not risen then we are the most unfortunate of all people ?"
Seems to me that if the Way of Jesus - loving your neighbour, being thankful for gifts of God, worshipping a loving-Father God in spirit and in truth, believing that all will be well and all manner of things will be well - is a good way to live out one's life regardless of what happens after death, then Paul's wrong. With that view of Christianity, whether the belief that leads to that Way turns out to be true or not is a secondary issue. If the materialists are right, there will be no opportunity for post-mortal embarrassment that we believed the fairy tale. Pascal's Wager rules...
The alternative slant on Christianity is that it absolutely requires giving up everything you have for the pearl of great price. That it's not a good way to live, it's a reckless throwing away of everything good in life, on the chance of heaven. Which would make Paul right.
Like a blind man offered a cure for his blindness that will take all the mental and physical resources he has - unfortunate indeed if he gives everything for a cure that turns out not to exist.
But then being forced to make that choice, having to choose between adapting to his situation as best he can or going "all in" for a cure, is a pretty cruel position to be in. Choosing to put someone in that position doesn't seem like the act of a loving father.
So I see the choice between those two interpretations of Christianity as being more important than how factually or symbolically one reads the gospels.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
...Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth to dust, the dust is earth, of earth we make loam—and why of that loam, whereto he was converted, might they not stop a beer barrel? Imperious Caesar, dead and turned to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.
There's going to be a lot of fighting for atoms.
No--even for the very literal-brained, that's not necessary. By the time that oak I mentioned gets full-grown, there's probably not an atom left in it that is original to the acorn. Heck, there's probably not an atom left in you that was there when you were three years old. And yet there is continuity between the acorn and the oak, between the 3yo and the adult. I see no reason there shouldn't be continuity between the body that died and the risen body, regardless of how many atoms are recycled.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How many atoms can dance on the head of an angel?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
What type of angel?
--------------------
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
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
that would be a right angel
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
How about a more 21st century analogy?
"For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality."
I hope for a reboot, after death, into a more powerful operating system. God will have all of our essentials on a data stick, perhaps. In due course when the OS in the new heaven and earth is up and running he'll download us all unto a system with much more processing power. And we'll really be able to do some stuff then!
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
that would be a right angel
(Groan.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
