|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Christianity without Jesus' physical resurrection? why or why not?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
One of the ship's threads discussed Revelation a few days ago. Subsequently, I happened to pick up a copy of Elaine Pagel's Revelations for $5.00. You might argue that it isn't worth that much, I might agree, but she argues rather well in my opinion that The Revelation was included for political and social reasons re the Roman Empire, and with Christianity's ascendency became something to use for people non-conforming to the rather narrow view that supported its secular power.
As she discusses this, she also discusses the alternative and other revelation books that were omitted from the New Testament, and illustrates how, again for reasons not about fact and truth, but political and power, they were excluded. These were written before there was a collection of pamphlets and letters collected into the NT. I get that she has been pushing this agenda since she wrote the book Gnostic Gospels (which must be 30 years old). However, she exposits more about the non-physical resurrection, i.e., Jesus died, but can spiritually resurrect within each person who seeks and believes. She goes on about the start of mainly North African monastic traditions, which are not predated by the church structures we have today: this non-physical and spiritual resurretion is what many of them believed, and they have the excluded books as their library (remember this predates the formation of the NT) They are an alternate authority. I know this can be easily dismissed with the labelling of it as gnostic and heresy etc., but I'd rather discuss it.
I want to know why Christianity could or could not exist if the resurrection stops at metaphor about spirit and has no physical reality. I'm wondering what the problems with this might be, if any. Why is it not good enough to have Jesus resurrected spiritually within each person, sans physical? I'm thinking it will take reason.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
Well, the whole point about Christianity is that it is Incarnational. Why would the Son of God unite Himself with the flesh and die in the flesh and then leave it to rot in the ground while His Spirit which was always immortal and eternal resumed business as usual?
[ 27. May 2014, 21:22: Message edited by: StevHep ]
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Paul puts it best in 1 Corinthians 15:17 "and if the Messiah wasn't raised, your faith is pointless and you are still in your sins." If one accepts a Christus Victor aspect of atonement then one should realise that one of the enemies over which victory was won was death itself. That victory could not be won only by crucifixion, the resurrection was necessary for the victory to be complete.
Taking another line, one could look at possibly the earliest christian confession that "Jesus is Lord". If there is no resurrection, then Jesus is dead. Therefore any claim to worship a living God would be nullified as Nietzche would be right.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
What TA said. We're not Christians because of Good Friday. We're Christians because of Easter Sunday.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The facts of canonical inclusion are the ever increasing circles of exclusion.
Revelation is certainly a barely coded attack on Rome.
No Resurrection, no Church. No Apostles. No thing.
We must have done this, the ultimate alternate history before.
Rome would have still have fallen. Would Islam have arisen? Would secular humanism have developed earlier?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Yes, but what makes Paul correct, in your view?
[ 27. May 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Yes, but what makes Paul correct, in your view? He had the nonphysical experience of Jesus on the road didn't he?
Only if you count being struck blind by intense light "non-physical"...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Yes, but what makes Paul correct, in your view?
Sheer logic. He's not making some kind of 'take it on faith' theological point here, he's simply stating that this is one of the lynchpins of the whole system: if THIS bit of what I'm teaching you isn't right, the whole thing falls down and doesn't make sense any more.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It was important to distinguish the risen Jesus from a ghost. Although the ability to appear and disappear to and from locked rooms is included in the narrative, so is eating, the demonstration of Thomas touching the wounds, speech, and the ascension.
We either believe that this may have actually happened, or we don't. If we don't, then we retain the possibility that Jesus may be a ghost. Does that matter? I think so. The first two reasons that come to mind are a) that there would be nothing to distinguish Jesus from any other human being, presuming that ghosts do exist; and b) that the idea of Jesus living in us and we in him may become troublesome.
If we do believe that it may have actually happened, our minds are free to accept greater possibilities about God and about our relationship with God, possibilities which include our humanity and which, once we bring in the Holy Spirit as well, help the truth of the Trinity to be affirmed in our hearts, if not in our heads.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
The grounding of my theology is in the Incarnation -which of necessity includes death- and the Resurrection. The Incarnation brought the Word to us; the Resurrection and Ascension joined humanity to the Godhead eternally. I might be wrong about a lot of my beliefs, but I truly hope and trust in these.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Yes, but what makes Paul correct, in your view? He had the nonphysical experience of Jesus on the road didn't he?
Only if you count being struck blind by intense light "non-physical"...
I took the second sentence out in the edit window time - sorry. I take the non-physical thing as no actual live Jesus present. A voice and an experience, but no living physical JC.
Is it not possible that a Christianity could exist without the physical resurrection? - this is my question. Because it did exist for some Christ-followers before the authority of the Roman Empire and Christianity were allied. Maybe I'm asking and answering my own question: "yes, because it did exist for several generations, probably for at least 150 to 250 years until the authority of Roman and Christianity began to weed out versions of Christianity they didn't prefer. This is a part that I particularly wonder about: Did they do this for power reasons versus reasons of truth? Some combination?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
if you were going on power reasons, surely the "no physical resurrection" idea would be far more palatable. It would certainly appeal to the Greeks and all the Hellenized bits of the empire--in fact, this is where the Gnostic-Christian views are supposed to have come from, as a kind of synthesis of popular anti-material ideas and Christianity.
As for the other side of it, I can't see who (besides the Jews) would have any innate leaning toward the physical resurrection--and the Jews were not exactly power players in the empire. So I don't think power comes into it.
Truth? Yes. Paul was right to say that without the physical resurrection, we are sunk. First of all because we would have no assurance at all that anything Jesus had said or done previously was approved by God, including his claim to be suffering to take away our sins. For all we would know, he could have been a liar, delusional... a ghost or other non-physical manifestation could be either a delusion or the common fate of all mankind, without any special divine intervention.
But a PHYSICAL resurrection is one-of-a-kind (at that point, anyway, stay tuned for the end-times general resurrection) and verifiable by witnesses present who can handle and touch--and therefore makes a really good divine seal-of-approval on everything Jesus said and did. Because God would never miraculously raise a liar and blasphemer from the dead. If (because) Jesus is the beneficiary of such a clear, one-of-a-kind miracle, which only God could bring about, therefore it follows that he has God's stamp of approval. And therefore we can trust what he has said and done.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The gnostics used to think that the handiwork of God was not saved. Clearly this is wrong because the scriptures tell us that there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Christ, in the context of the resurrection, is called the firstborn of a new creation. A non-physical resurrection simply doesn't make sense. God took on flesh, died in the flesh and rose in the flesh so that those who are in him might partake of that new creation too. Without the body we are not fully human.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Maybe the gnostic gospels that Pagels so clearly loves weren't included in the NT because they, well, they just weren't right. They did not match the apostolic deposit that was handed down in the church. I think this points up the importance of knowing how and why what we call the New Testament was written and gathered.
It wasn't just some magic tingly from Paul's letters that the early believers felt, and said, "These are from God, because they have the magic tingly." No, that's how Mormons dupe new converts. That's not how God works. The New Testament was decided upon because it matched the apostolic deposit of faith that the church already possessed. These letters accord with what we learned from those who taught us the faith, who learned from the Apostles, who learned from Christ. Tradition isn't just some bauble for Catholics and Orthodox and 47.3% of Anglicans to play with and go, "ooooh." It is central to how the Church weeded out the Gospel of Thomas and other Pagels' Picks, and kept the Gospel of Matthew and the Letter to the Galatians.
Abrupt change of subject back to the resurrection...
It may be that something one could call "Christianity" could have existed had Jesus not resurrected. But it wouldn't be this Christianity, the one that exists, the real deal. It would be something else going under the same word, but it wouldn't be Christianity. Christianity, as it grew and has come down to us, is an Easter faith. It is Paschal in nature.
The Resurrection is our ticket out of death. Without it, we are of all men (and women) most to be pitied. With it, we are Easter People, we are Resurrection People, we are a Paschal fellowship -- with it, we are Christians.
[ 28. May 2014, 03:09: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It does seem if physical resurrection is left out, then the eternal life bit also goes.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But a PHYSICAL resurrection is one-of-a-kind (at that point, anyway, stay tuned for the end-times general resurrection) and verifiable by witnesses present who can handle and touch--and therefore makes a really good divine seal-of-approval on everything Jesus said and did. Because God would never miraculously raise a liar and blasphemer from the dead. If (because) Jesus is the beneficiary of such a clear, one-of-a-kind miracle, which only God could bring about, therefore it follows that he has God's stamp of approval. And therefore we can trust what he has said and done.
What about Matthew 27:51-53 according to which Jesus wasn't the first never mind unique? Then there's Elijah and that widows son.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
There is a difference between being brought back to life by someone else and triumphing over every aspect of death in your own person.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
What about Matthew 27:51-53 according to which Jesus wasn't the first never mind unique? Then there's Elijah and that widows son.
Because one has to be careful to distinguish between resurrection and resuscitation. Resuscitation is merely the bringing back to life from the dead, but the body remains the same, in corrupted form. Resurrection is a renewed body, powered by the spirit (the soma pneumatikon rather than soma psychikon).
Admittedly, the Matthew reference (as with the massacre of the infants) is that little more is said of it by the writer of the gospel, nor does it seem to play a significant part in early christian belief. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, is there any corroborating evidence. So at best, one can be agnostic about that aspect of the historicity.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
There is a difference between being brought back to life by someone else and triumphing over every aspect of death in your own person.
Yes, specifically "triumphing over every aspect of death" is an interpretation of an event put on it after the fact. If your argument is that an event was unique and it's the uniqueness that validates other stuff (i.e. specific doctrine) then you can't use your interpretation as part of the uniqueness can you? Especially when that interpretation itself comes from the doctrine.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
TheAlethiophile - see my response above but to expand a little:
I'm not arguing against the uniqueness of Jesus resurrection in a theological sense. I'm just saying, asking really, whether we can use it as the starting point of an apologetic as LC appears to do.
Imagine for a second you are the wife of one of those "resuscitated" and you happen to meet on Easter Sunday one of the women who was at Jesus tomb. You'd be swapping stories, talking excitedly about how amazing it was. I don't think you'd be thinking there was something fundamentally different about what had happened.
Or to try to put it another way - if uniqueness is part of the argument and the uniqueness comes from the meaning we put on it then you're essentially saying Jesus' resurrection means something special because of the specialness of its meaning.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
We're not Christians because of Good Friday. We're Christians because of Easter Sunday.
Actually we are Christians because of both.
"For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified", as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 2.
"I have been crucified with Christ..." (Gal. 2:20)
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
A good man might chose to die for other people. The Son of God is resurrected.
The whole context and sweep of Paul's letters is the breaking-in of God's kingdom, announced by the Resurrection, in which we will all eventually share.
Roll the stone away.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
"Both... and"
not
"Either... or"
Read Romans chapter 6.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
TheAlethiophile - see my response above but to expand a little:
I'm not arguing against the uniqueness of Jesus resurrection in a theological sense. I'm just saying, asking really, whether we can use it as the starting point of an apologetic as LC appears to do.
Imagine for a second you are the wife of one of those "resuscitated" and you happen to meet on Easter Sunday one of the women who was at Jesus tomb. You'd be swapping stories, talking excitedly about how amazing it was. I don't think you'd be thinking there was something fundamentally different about what had happened.
Or to try to put it another way - if uniqueness is part of the argument and the uniqueness comes from the meaning we put on it then you're essentially saying Jesus' resurrection means something special because of the specialness of its meaning.
It IS different in one way that's so obvious it's easy to miss. It's permanent. Christ's resurrection is the first of the final resurrections of the last day--death no longer has any power over him, he will never die again. This is not the case with any of the temporary resurrections which he and others did as signposts to the future. Lazarus etc would eventually die again.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And yes, more seriously, I do agree with EE.
In some ways, I think this thread has resonances with the one about Catholicism ... insofar that Catholicism (whether Roman or otherwise) has always been characterised by an Incarnational emphasis - hence the physicality ...
And this physicality necessitates/presupposes a physical resurrection ... or should I say the Resurrection necessitates the physicality - the Incarnation, life, death and Resurrection of Christ is the cause rather than the effect.
I don't say this to diss all Protestants, but there has been a Protestant tendency to conceptualise and de-physicalise things - if I can put it that way. So we end up with a non-physical and metaphorical 'resurrection' if we take things too far in that direction - Jesus continuing to exist as a nice, warm, fuzzy memory among his disciples not actually risen and ascended in the full sense ...
You can see how this easily descends into ever increasing abstraction until we end up with atheism.
Or to a practical atheism to all intents and purposes - and yes, I know I'm beginning to sound like EE but I agree with him on that element.
So, no, I don't think we can have 'proper' or 'kosher' Christianity without a physical resurrection - and this aspect shouldn't be isolated either from the full trajectory of the total 'Christ event' if you like - which includes the moral teachings, the exemplary life, the passion, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.
We need the whole thing. The whole kit and kaboodle if that doesn't sound too flippant and irreverent.
Essentially, we need Christ. And He is the One who is sat at the right hand of the Majesty on high ... not simply recalled as a wistful memory but a real and living presence - now and forever and unto the ages of ages, Amen.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It does seem if physical resurrection is left out, then the eternal life bit also goes.
"Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." I believe that's in Isaiah. Not approvingly.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"Both... and"
not
"Either... or"
Read Romans chapter 6.
Jesus couldn't have been resurrected had He not been crucified. But the point is, the trajectory of the incarnation, from annunciation to birth to becoming a refugee to returning to Galilee to going up to the temple to Cana to Calvary, is not Death, but destroying Death. The crucifixion is a signpost, not a destination, any more than the Jordan is the promised land.
Land me safe on Canaan's side. The promise of that is not the crucifixion, but the resurrection. And Paul knew it.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We might do better to think of the Crucifixion/Resurrection as a single event. Sort of like the dive into a swimming pool and the coming up afterward.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We might do better to think of the Crucifixion/Resurrection as a single event. Sort of like the dive into a swimming pool and the coming up afterward.
Indeed. In fact isn't that pretty much what Romans 6 says (for those of us that believe "baptism" means "immersion" )? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
There is a difference between being brought back to life by someone else and triumphing over every aspect of death in your own person.
A small quibble, StevHep. Jesus was brought back to life by another person, the Father.
It is the Father's act that resurrects Jesus. Jesus had fully emptied himself of his divinity.
The Paschal acclamation is in the passive voice: Christ is risen!
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We might do better to think of the Crucifixion/Resurrection as a single event. Sort of like the dive into a swimming pool and the coming up afterward.
Yes but. We all dive. Only one (so far) has surfaced.
It's that that makes Christ's life unique.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I suppose I've tended to assume that a lot of Christians in effect do have a kind of gnostic view of Christ. I mean, there is a nominal acceptance of the physicality of it all, but isn't there also a pragmatic view that Christ is not flesh, and Christ is in you and me. Ah well, probably shows the error of my ways.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm struck by (and applaud) the huge consensus so far on this thread in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quetzalcoatl. It certainly wasn't the case the last time this subject came up.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Jesus couldn't have been resurrected had He not been crucified. But the point is, the trajectory of the incarnation, from annunciation to birth to becoming a refugee to returning to Galilee to going up to the temple to Cana to Calvary, is not Death, but destroying Death. The crucifixion is a signpost, not a destination, any more than the Jordan is the promised land.
Land me safe on Canaan's side. The promise of that is not the crucifixion, but the resurrection. And Paul knew it.
Yes, this is true, of course. But Paul never downplayed the death of Christ. In fact, the death of Christ was absolutely central to his theology, hence "I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified". Why did Paul not say "I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected"? OK, I suppose it's implied from his other declarations and pronouncements, but it is clear to me that the cross of Christ plays a central role in the Christian life, hence the Eucharist:
quote:
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
(1 Corinthians 11:26)
Note that Paul did not say that "you proclaim the Lord's death and resurrection till he comes". Why is that, do you think?
Then there is the emphasis in the New Testament on the sanctifying power of the blood of Christ. In the Eucharist we drink the blood, as it were, and eat the broken body of Christ. All to do with His death, through which we receive life.
From the point of view of an outsider, the central core of the Christian faith appears to be shockingly cannibalistic. We eat and drink Christ in the dirt and mess of our lives down here; we do not just admire a victorious champion seated in glory "up there".
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
There is a difference between being brought back to life by someone else and triumphing over every aspect of death in your own person.
A small quibble, StevHep. Jesus was brought back to life by another person, the Father.
It is the Father's act that resurrects Jesus. Jesus had fully emptied himself of his divinity.
The Paschal acclamation is in the passive voice: Christ is risen!
Another quibble, since we're quibbling--
"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:17-18
It's another both/and. (Let's see how many annoyance points I can score, hey!)
--------------------
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
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
There is a difference between being brought back to life by someone else and triumphing over every aspect of death in your own person.
A small quibble, StevHep. Jesus was brought back to life by another person, the Father.
It is the Father's act that resurrects Jesus. Jesus had fully emptied himself of his divinity.
The Paschal acclamation is in the passive voice: Christ is risen!
Strictly speaking each work of one person of the Trinity necessarily involves the other two persons in some fashion. Nonetheless I stick by the Catechism on this one
quote:
649 As for the Son, he effects his own Resurrection by virtue of his divine power. Jesus announces that the Son of man will have to suffer much, die, and then rise. Elsewhere he affirms explicitly: "I lay down my life, that I may take it again. . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." "We believe that Jesus died and rose again."
The Resurrection A work of the Holy Trinity
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It does seem if physical resurrection is left out, then the eternal life bit also goes.
That is the prime reason that John's Gospel was written in the late first or early second century. Christians then were a small minority and subject to persecution and death. The resurrection was promoted by the writer to bolster the faith in an eternal life.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
What about Matthew 27:51-53 according to which Jesus wasn't the first never mind unique? Then there's Elijah and that widows son.
The widow's son wasn't raised to new life but to the same old one. The story gives us nothing to think he didn't go on to die in the normal way like everybody else, and get buried in the cold, cold ground. It's treated completely differently than Christ's resurrection.
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The Paschal acclamation is in the passive voice: Christ is risen!
Actually the passive voice would be "Christ has been risen." This is saying he is a risen one -- "risen" is being used adjectivally.
Also, what SteveHep said.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Note that Paul did not say that "you proclaim the Lord's death and resurrection till he comes". Why is that, do you think?
Because the Eucharist, in our worship, is our participation in his death. I don't see how we can draw any further inferences from this omission, since it isn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why did Paul not say "I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected"? OK, I suppose it's implied from his other declarations and pronouncements, but it is clear to me that the cross of Christ plays a central role in the Christian life
The crucifixion is only significant because of the resurrection.
Think about how many crucifixions had taken place in Paul's lifetime. How many of those crucified ever came back?
I'm not saying it has no significance - it clearly does, since that's where Christ died for our sins, once for all, upon the cross. But what gives its significance - why the cross is the emblematic of salvation - is that Christ defeated sin and death and hell by rising from the dead in an incorruptible body.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Doc Tor -
I thoroughly agree with you.
Both aspects of Christ's work of salvation are hugely important. But let's not simply lock the death of Christ into the past. The practice of the Eucharist indicates its relevance for the present.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm struck by (and applaud) the huge consensus so far on this thread in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quetzalcoatl. It certainly wasn't the case the last time this subject came up.
Well, that's fine, but surely you don't see Christ as flesh, do you? Well, I mean, you do nominally, but that's imaginary, isn't it? Well, OK, everything is, I know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's not exactly the same body: as has been pointed out upthread, Christ's resurrection is, unlike Lazarus et al, not a ressuscitation*. Paul contrasts the "heavenly body" (stop cackling back there) with the "earthly body". The point is that Christ's resurrection is not disembodied.
==
*There was once a looong thread, entitled as I recall "what happened to all the fish", about the differences between Jesus' resurrection body and ornery regular resurrected bodies like those of Lazarus (who I feel great sympathy for as someone who had to die twice and worse still, knew what was coming the second time around).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm struck by (and applaud) the huge consensus so far on this thread in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quetzalcoatl. It certainly wasn't the case the last time this subject came up.
Well, that's fine, but surely you don't see Christ as flesh, do you? Well, I mean, you do nominally, but that's imaginary, isn't it? Well, OK, everything is, I know.
What? Huh? What? When did he cease to be flesh? This is gnostic-bordering-on-neoplatonist (or vice versa).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Perhaps it would help matters if we tried not to see "spiritual" and "physical" as opposite and exclusive? If I'm remembering Paul right (and these days I hardly ever do), isn't the opposite of "spirit" "flesh"? - which is, or at least may be, a different thing entirely?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm struck by (and applaud) the huge consensus so far on this thread in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quetzalcoatl. It certainly wasn't the case the last time this subject came up.
Well, that's fine, but surely you don't see Christ as flesh, do you? Well, I mean, you do nominally, but that's imaginary, isn't it? Well, OK, everything is, I know.
I do. Why not? Or is it that you think it's somehow going to interfere with his omnipresence etc.? In which case look up "communication of attributes."
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm struck by (and applaud) the huge consensus so far on this thread in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quetzalcoatl. It certainly wasn't the case the last time this subject came up.
Well, that's fine, but surely you don't see Christ as flesh, do you? Well, I mean, you do nominally, but that's imaginary, isn't it? Well, OK, everything is, I know.
I do. Why not? Or is it that you think it's somehow going to interfere with his omnipresence etc.? In which case look up "communication of attributes."
Well, no, just, if he is flesh, and not imaginary, where is he?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm struck by (and applaud) the huge consensus so far on this thread in favour of the bodily resurrection of Christ, quetzalcoatl. It certainly wasn't the case the last time this subject came up.
That might be because those in favour tend not to be open to the possibility that they are mistaken. It's an axiom of faith adopted for social or personal reasons, not a conclusion susceptible to reasoned argument. What's to discuss if the purpose of participation is only to reinforce one point of view?
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
