Thread: Christianity without Jesus' physical resurrection? why or why not? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027381
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
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 ]
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
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.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
What TA said. We're not Christians because of Good Friday. We're Christians because of Easter Sunday.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Yes, but what makes Paul correct, in your view?
[ 27. May 2014, 21:56: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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"...
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
It does seem if physical resurrection is left out, then the eternal life bit also goes.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
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.
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
There is a difference between being brought back to life by someone else and triumphing over every aspect of death in your own person.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
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.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
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.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
"Both... and"
not
"Either... or"
Read Romans chapter 6.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Wow ... EE is using my line ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, exactly that.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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)
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
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!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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".
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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!)
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
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
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
God [in this context, the Father, see v17] put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places
Ephesians 1:20
See, I can prooftext too ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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).
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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."
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
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?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
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?
My surprise is not that (almost) everyone here seems to agree, it's that the consensus is very different to the previous, similar discussion I recall us having.
[ 28. May 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Thought so.
[ETA: this is in answer to the question of where Christ's body is now]
Okay, that question has a lot of answers to it. I'll take a shot (and everyone else will too, I know)...
a) At the right hand of the Father.
b) No, we don't know precisely what that means in terms of his physical body. Because duh, the Father is spirit, and has no physical right hand, and the statement is a metaphor.
c) Nevertheless, that body IS somewhere (the disciples saw it going away at the Ascension, right?) but
d) given that we don't know very much about either space/time OR the nature and properties of the human resurrection body, any answer we venture on the subject is likely to be nonsense. Like an answer to the question "how heavy is yellow?"
e) There are a few things we DO know. Which include the fact that Christ promised to be with us (and in us, yeah), so from that we can deduce that his human resurrected body doesn't slow him down.
f) We also know that he isn't given to popping up visibly all over the place since the Ascension, and before the Second Coming, so something's going on there, can't tell you what.
g) Finally, there's the whole Eucharistic bit. If you believe in the Real Presence (yes, I do) and take those words about eating his flesh/drinking his blood seriously, then there's something odd going on here too--
h) .... but in a situation where the data and parameters are so unknown to us, it's really pretty useless to theorize. Someday we'll be told, I hope.
[ 28. May 2014, 15:16: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
It's an axiom of faith adopted for social or personal reasons, not a conclusion susceptible to reasoned argument.
According to you.
Which is all I can say, given that you have not presented a reasoned argument, but merely an unsupported assertion.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
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?
The relationship between "physical" and "flesh" is a whole other topic. If you're not careful, you end up thinking that there are no sins of the intellect. But that's another topic.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, no, just, if he is flesh, and not imaginary, where is he?
To add to what LC just said, and to repeat myself:
Jesus' resurrection body is, according the gospel accounts, clearly different to standard-issue non-last-day-resurrected human bodies. That doesn't mean it does not have materiality, but it does open up the possibility of it being physically present somewhere in ways we can't conceive of.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Thought so.
[ETA: this is in answer to the question of where Christ's body is now]
Okay, that question has a lot of answers to it. I'll take a shot (and everyone else will too, I know)...
a) At the right hand of the Father.
b) No, we don't know precisely what that means in terms of his physical body. Because duh, the Father is spirit, and has no physical right hand, and the statement is a metaphor.
c) Nevertheless, that body IS somewhere (the disciples saw it going away at the Ascension, right?) but
d) given that we don't know very much about either space/time OR the nature and properties of the human resurrection body, any answer we venture on the subject is likely to be nonsense. Like an answer to the question "how heavy is yellow?"
e) There are a few things we DO know. Which include the fact that Christ promised to be with us (and in us, yeah), so from that we can deduce that his human resurrected body doesn't slow him down.
f) We also know that he isn't given to popping up visibly all over the place since the Ascension, so something's going on there, can't tell you what.
g) Finally, there's the whole Eucharistic bit. If you believe in the Real Presence (yes, I do) and take those words about eating his flesh/drinking his blood seriously, then there's something odd going on here too--
h) .... but in a situation where the data and parameters are so unknown to us, it's really pretty useless to theorize. Someday we'll be told, I hope.
I'm not sure if that is a reply to me, or not, but assuming that it is, I would take all that as imaginary. That is not a criticism, since imaginary or symbolic things are very powerful, and maybe, the most powerful human systems that we have.
The trouble is, that there are an infinite number of imaginary things. For example, I could say that the next bodhisattva that I meet is real, but I am working within a particular symbolic system. Or when the shaman tells me that a power animal will bestow its gifts on me, he might be right, but he is guessing, I think, which is also OK.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would take all that as imaginary. That is not a criticism, since imaginary or symbolic things are very powerful, and maybe, the most powerful human systems that we have.
As far as I can tell (and this has not been without an inner struggle on my part), Christianity makes no sense at all unless the resurrection is a material, tangible reality, and not just an imaginary or symbolic one.
You can't have the airy-fairy values without the nitty-gritty, squelchy, smelly Incarnation.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
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?
What evidence would make you believe that those in favour are open to the possibility that they are mistaken, and are suspectible to reasoned argument, and believe it anyway?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would take all that as imaginary. That is not a criticism, since imaginary or symbolic things are very powerful, and maybe, the most powerful human systems that we have.
As far as I can tell (and this has not been without an inner struggle on my part), Christianity makes no sense at all unless the resurrection is a material, tangible reality, and not just an imaginary or symbolic one.
You can't have the airy-fairy values without the nitty-gritty, squelchy, smelly Incarnation.
Well, that's very interesting. Maybe, here is one of the places, which eventually made me pull back. It sounds like an argument to convince oneself to believe in the material reality of something, that is, the resurrection. But again, where? I can see Christ in you, and you are (presumably) flesh, so that works. Well, I am happy with that.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I concur with Dave on this. I am working with this week the notion that it probably doesn't matter if this is spiritual or bodily. It certainly changes the focus from "cheating death" and "eternal life" to one of living properly, following Jesus' example.
I wonder what additional implications are?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The relationship between "physical" and "flesh" is a whole other topic. If you're not careful, you end up thinking that there are no sins of the intellect. But that's another topic.
Or that bifurcating "intellect" and "flesh" is just as suspect.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble is, that there are an infinite number of imaginary things. For example, I could say that the next bodhisattva that I meet is real, but I am working within a particular symbolic system. Or when the shaman tells me that a power animal will bestow its gifts on me, he might be right, but he is guessing, I think, which is also OK.
Which is as good a reductio ad absurdam as you could wish, if you take that Christianity is true. Can't be imaginary. QED.
quote:
I can see Christ in you,
Why isn't that imaginary too?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
According to you. Which is all I can say, given that you have not presented a reasoned argument, but merely an unsupported assertion.
According to all reliable sources, I think you'll find. The assertion that God actually resurrected Jesus only has crediblity within a particular religious tradition, and then only among those who value an orthodox set of beliefs.
'Christianity' refers to a much broader strand of history. That includes those of us who have absorbed the stories and the values they represent, but reject the authority of religious institutions to dictate what we ought to believe. In some sense a fairly fundamental difference, but still Christian in contexts where such things matter.
[ 28. May 2014, 15:59: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The relationship between "physical" and "flesh" is a whole other topic. If you're not careful, you end up thinking that there are no sins of the intellect. But that's another topic.
Or that bifurcating "intellect" and "flesh" is just as suspect.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The trouble is, that there are an infinite number of imaginary things. For example, I could say that the next bodhisattva that I meet is real, but I am working within a particular symbolic system. Or when the shaman tells me that a power animal will bestow its gifts on me, he might be right, but he is guessing, I think, which is also OK.
Which is as good a reductio ad absurdam as you could wish, if you take that Christianity is true. Can't be imaginary. QED.
quote:
I can see Christ in you,
Why isn't that imaginary too?
Good point. It is. You see, I'm just as deluded.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
quote:
I can see Christ in you,
Why isn't that imaginary too?
Good point. It is. You see, I'm just as deluded.
Then all Christianity is delusion, on your reading. So for anybody who does not believe it's delusion, your reading is a non-starter.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
...but reject the authority of religious institutions to dictate what we ought to believe.
Well, I certainly reject the authority and right of religious institutions to dictate what I believe or ought to believe, as I have been at pains to point out recently here on the Ship.
I also believe in the resurrection, not because it has been 'dictated' to me, but because it makes sense.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that's very interesting. Maybe, here is one of the places, which eventually made me pull back. It sounds like an argument to convince oneself to believe in the material reality of something, that is, the resurrection.
I'm not sure I've understood you here, but let me have another go at explaining my position.
Christianity only makes sense if God became flesh, in other words, took on our human condition.
As I understand it, there would have been no point in doing this unless God is interested in more than abstract immateriality. The fact that he created a lot of tangible stuff points in this direction, too. The interaction between bodily realities and intellectual ones is all over Christianity (although not without its squabbles and difficulties).
All that is a given in the faith. From that perspective, a bodily (albeit other-bodily) resurrection makes sense.
In some ways it would be a lot simpler to do without the hope of the resurrection, so believing it is not just something I feel the need to talk myself into so there's a sweet by-and-by. It's more that I've come to the inescapable conclusion that that is where the whole thing is headed. God is interested in redeeming materiality, not just instilling a few bright ideas.
You're not the first person I've come across who finds this whole tangible bit a little on the yukky side, though.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Eutychus
I don't find it yukky, just very vague.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm sorry, that was directed at the peanut gallery and rather superfluous to my argument.
Of course it is tangible in that as you say, we're supposed to start working on all that in the here and now.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What evidence would make you believe that those in favour are open to the possibility that they are mistaken, and are suspectible to reasoned argument, and believe it anyway?
Well, evidence for susceptability to reasoned argument on a particular topic might be hard to come by, especially if the belief is based not on reliable evidence but being "caught" from others and regularly reinforced through participation in social activities where that belief is the norm.
Based on a number of threads like this, I doubt there is much interest among "the believers" in stepping outside a lifestyle that regularly reinforces that belief. Without that step, my experience is that the social, personal and intellectual attachments of belief-based church make letting go of its central tenet very hard.
But of course I might be wrong in any particular case.
[ 28. May 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
Without that step, my experience is that the social, personal and intellectual attachments of belief-based church make letting go of its central tenet very hard.
Why would they want to let it go anyway, even if they are severed from these attachments you mention?
Have you ever considered the non-patronising theory that such people may actually be convinced that it is true based on the evidence?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I certainly reject the authority and right of religious institutions to dictate what I believe or ought to believe
Yes, most of us at least may if we wish leave the institution. But to retain its blessing or, at least in the C of E, exercise any authority with in it, we must assent to its statements of belief.
quote:
I also believe in the resurrection, not because it has been 'dictated' to me, but because it makes sense.
"Believe in the resurrection" is subtly different to believing God physically resurrected Jesus. And yes, it can "make sense" within the context of a community that assumes it is true. But making sense is only imposing order on our thinking. Within a church setting it can make perfect sense. But if that sense falls apart in other contexts, its value is probably limited.
[cross-posted]
[ 28. May 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think you need to define imaginary.
The way I understand it, it means basically "fictional." Something that does not exist in reality outside of one's head.
From your usage, though, I suspect you mean something closer to "symbolic" or "nonphysical" or ... ?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think you need to define imaginary.
The way I understand it, it means basically "fictional." Something that does not exist in reality outside of one's head.
From your usage, though, I suspect you mean something closer to "symbolic" or "nonphysical" or ... ?
Again, not sure who this is addressed to, but anyway.
Yes, probably 'imaginary' is a bad word, since you could argue that everything is in a sense. The atheist predilection for physical stuff makes little sense to me, since 'matter' is itself a human construct.
Anyway. Yes, 'symbolic' is better, I think, but then my own argument collapses, as mousethief (sort of) pointed out, since any spiritual or religious position is symbolic. In fact, maybe any human position on anything is symbolic!
But I suppose some religions claim to be non-symbolic?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
According to the book I referenced in the OP, Christianity functioned just find without the idea of a physical resurrection for several hundred years. Some believed in it, but a whole swath of people in North Africa did not, and they kept their belief about spiritual resurrection of each person going.
So I don't buy the notion just now that "Christianity does not make sense without resurrection" or doesn't make sense if God didn't become flesh etc, it seems that it may make different sense.
[ 28. May 2014, 18:09: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Resurrection is not an exclusively Christian belief. But belief in some sort of a tangible resurrection is part and parcel of Christianity, at least historically, for anyone who thinks 1 Corinthians or indeed Acts are part of the canon of Scripture.
[ 28. May 2014, 18:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall: Based on a number of threads like this, I doubt there is much interest among "the believers" in stepping outside a lifestyle that regularly reinforces that belief. Without that step, my experience is that the social, personal and intellectual attachments of belief-based church make letting go of its central tenet very hard.
I think you're probably right but I can't quite get hold of why anyone for whom the story (and I use that word in all its fullness)of the Resurrection has meaning and truth would want to let go of this central tenet... Surely they'd want to keep their faith alive and well? Whether or not they want to be a member of a church is another story.
On a personal note, I love reciting the creed: saying those words gives me a "hook to hang my hat on"and I draw strength from doing that on a regular basis, so no I don't want to "step outside a lifestyle that regularly reinforces that belief" but I am up for regularly rethinking my theology and praxis in many areas. But as you say the Resurrection is central and I don't want to move from here. This is my personal line in the sand.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I know quite a few people for whom the resurrection is symbolic, meaning, I suppose new life, after something dying.
Of course, if you take that view, then you needn't be a Christian at all, since the idea of death/life is very common in religions and spiritual paths.
As Rumi famously says, 'the wound is the place where the Light enters you', (also Leonard Cohen, I think, 'there's a crack in everything, that's where the light gets in').
[ 28. May 2014, 18:40: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What evidence would make you believe that those in favour are open to the possibility that they are mistaken, and are suspectible to reasoned argument, and believe it anyway?
Well, evidence for susceptability to reasoned argument on a particular topic might be hard to come by, especially if the belief is based not on reliable evidence but being "caught" from others and regularly reinforced through participation in social activities where that belief is the norm.
Based on a number of threads like this, I doubt there is much interest among "the believers" in stepping outside a lifestyle that regularly reinforces that belief. Without that step, my experience is that the social, personal and intellectual attachments of belief-based church make letting go of its central tenet very hard.
So, let me see if I understand:
you presuppose that the belief is not based on reliable evidence;
you have an intellectual and personal attachment to the idea that people who disagree with you do so not on the basis of reliable evidence;
you reinforce that presupposition by openly expressing the claim that the people who disagree with you 'tend not to be open to the possibility that they might be wrong', so ensuring that any discussion gets off an antagonistic footing;
and therefore the answer to my question is:
no evidence would make you believe that people who disagree with you are open to evidence.
Is that the gist of it?
[ 28. May 2014, 18:53: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Questions arising for me:
1. Did/does the physical resurrection prove Jesus' divinity?
2. Sometimes Jesus acts like a physical entity in the gospel narratives and other times not. What does this mean about physical resurrection?
3. Do we have the same patterns of thought about life, death, resurrection and visions etc - do we have the same frame of reference as is written about in the narratives in the NT? How can we know we think the same or in different ways as people then?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
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.
The problem is that the reasons of political power she cites tell against her thesis. Christians who believed in the physical resurrection refused to worship the political cult, or at least admired those who did, and got themselves killed doing so, since such refusal was seen as a political act. Christians who did not, according to Pagels' own account, did not challenge imperial power in that or any other way. (She also concedes that it was the party that eventually established orthodoxy that was more interesting in feeding the poor.) Yet Pagels wants to argue that therefore the gnostics were the ones who were really challenging imperial power. Well, maybe. But the prima facie evidence is on her own account against her.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would they want to let it go anyway, even if they are severed from these attachments you mention?
I would have thought if they found there was no longer a good enough reason to believe it. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think our beliefs may be influenced by the people we spend time with and trust.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
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" )?
Doesn't matter either way 'cos Romans 6 isn't about water baptism.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
So, you're telling us that Romans 6:3-4 isn't a reference to water baptism, Daronmedway but to some other baptism - baptism in the Holy Spirit perhaps?
How do you work that one out?
It sounds suspiciously like a charismatic piece of eisegesis to me, but I'm willing to stand corrected ...
Whether you can prove this by either scripture or tradition (or both) I rather doubt - but we'll see ...
Meanwhile @Dave Marshall, of course people absorb beliefs from people they know and trust. That happens with all of us, irrespective of whether we have religious faith and convictions or not ...
I'd posit that this was how EE came to believe in the resurrection too ... yes, it might well 'make sense' but EE and all the rest of us could only come to that conclusion as it had already made sense to other people in the past - the Church (whether understood in Catholic or Protestant terms or both) and they'd passed the belief down to us to the present day.
That's not the same as allowing a religious institution to 'dictate' what we belief - it's more organic than that - but neither is it to diss or dismiss the human agencies involved in handing the Gospel down to us.
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
It might be worth recalling that all the official creeds of the Church affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus and that of all people in the final judgement. This belief, indeed formed the core of much of the ridicule that pagans poured upon Christianity as we see from the account of St Paul in the Areopagus. Also there was a certain to and fro Between Celsus and Origen on the subject. Celsus (Chapter 36) is quoted thus quote:
Let them hearken to us, if such a spiritless and carnal race are able to do so: if, instead of exercising the senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only will you be able to see God. And if you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms. Otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, while you pronounce imprecations upon those others that are recognised as gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to him.
Which is really just the same spirit good flesh bad viewpoint common to Gnostics and theological liberals.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
you presuppose that the belief is not based on reliable evidence;
Yes. On the basis that there can be no reliable evidence that God physically resurrected Jesus, because it's a claim about an event documented only in stories handed down by those making the claim.
quote:
you have an intellectual and personal attachment to the idea that people who disagree with you do so not on the basis of reliable evidence;
No, I haven't said or implied that. I've only commented on a single belief under discussion.
quote:
you reinforce that presupposition by openly expressing the claim that the people who disagree with you 'tend not to be open to the possibility that they might be wrong'
Now you're on a roll, making stuff up.
quote:
ensuring that any discussion gets off an antagonistic footing;
I may have been a little unrestful...
quote:
therefore the answer to my question is:
no evidence would make you believe that people who disagree with you are open to evidence.
Is that the gist of it?
Not quite. Your question was about the case of belief that God physically resurrected Jesus. In that particular instance, for most practical purposes you would have the gist of my position. But then, it's hardly one that needs defending in almost any other context.
[ 28. May 2014, 20:01: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
A couple people here are either imputing bad motives to other shipmates or are very close to it. Don't.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
According to the book I referenced in the OP, Christianity functioned just find without the idea of a physical resurrection for several hundred years. Some believed in it, but a whole swath of people in North Africa did not, and they kept their belief about spiritual resurrection of each person going.
Yes but the book you mentioned in the OP is by Pagels, who I'm sure by "Christianity" meant to include what is now called gnosticism. But gnosticism isn't Christianity, pace Pagels. So what her book says or doesn't say isn't really germane to what REALLY was taking place in CHRISTIANITY. Which had from its earliest days a witness to the resurrection, and from its almost-earliest days four gospels which all are pretty unambiguous about it.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I think it was MT. If we have Christianity pre-Nicea and previous to the acceptance of what are the canonical books of the NT. Maybe this should be called embryonic-Christianity or Christianity-in-formation or something? Not sure.
I understand that with the smorgasbord of ideas available these days of internet, that conjecture is rather possible. But because Pagel's can cite from the 66 of so books which have both antiquity and known provinence, it does persuade that there were people holding ideas about Jesus and the resurrection outside of accepted creedal forumula we accept today.
None of this is about the rightness or wrongness of these alternate beliefs. It is about the possible differences in a Christianity which doesn't accept physical resurrection but considers it spiritual alone. It is circular reasoning to suggest that because the canonical gospels support physical resurrection that it is therefore what was held at the start, because if the books were selected by those who had the belief they selected the ones which supported the belief and omitted the others. There is info to suggest that the disparate books were actively suppressed as well.
All of this leads me continually to the query: what if it was not physical and was spiritual. Does this actually change things? In some ways, I wonder if it would have to, because presumably while resurrection in bodily form was something Jesus got, I had not expected that this would something for you or me, but we would get the spiritual variety.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Did/does the physical resurrection prove Jesus' divinity?
Not on its own, no, but it attests to it. All the more so in that the gospels tell us Jesus foretold his resurrection. I often say that his resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil and death.
quote:
Sometimes Jesus acts like a physical entity in the gospel narratives and other times not. What does this mean about physical resurrection?
Assuming that you are talking about after Jesus' resurrection, it means that his resurrection body was similar yet different to a usual one. One of the oddest things is the way people keep failing to recognise him. At the end of Mark's gospel it says he appeared to some "in another form" (what, as an armchair or a toaster or something?).
But as has been pointed out already, Jesus' resurrection body is in a class of its own. Unlike Lazarus et al, it's not a ressuscitation of a body from this age. Unlike what is promised for believers, it appears before the eschaton and thus not reserved for the age to come.
quote:
Do we have the same patterns of thought about life, death, resurrection and visions etc - do we have the same frame of reference as is written about in the narratives in the NT? How can we know we think the same or in different ways as people then?
In, say, 1 Corinthians 15, Paul's understanding of cosmology and natural science is quite clearly different to our contemporary understanding. But the thrust of his argument in the same chapter about the bodily resurrection of the dead and why it matters is easy to follow nonetheless, whether or not you buy into it.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Can Christians not believe in Jesus's resurrection?
Well, what is the purpose of the question?
Certainly, in terms of self-ascribed identity, Christians can believe in any number of things. There is nothing stopping me from saying that I am a Christian and believe that pink unicorns orbit Mars. So, yes, there is nothing stopping a Christian from saying that he or she doesn't believe in Christ's physical resurrection.
A better question might be, recognizing that Christians may disbelieve in the Resurrection, should one who disbelieves in the doctrine be given an authoritative role in the faith community? Can one who disbelieves in the Resurrection serve as a preacher of the faith?
I would say, "No" because preachers and ministers are called to represent not themselves, but the faith community. The institutional Church as a corporate entity has decreed that the Resurrection is a key tenet of the faith. As such, a corporate community has every right to call leaders that reflect that belief.
Christians who disbelieve in the Resurrection of course, in our pluralistic culture, are entitled to create their own communities and their own churches. But I who believe in the Resurrection, would have little interest in joining such a church.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Does apply to Spong the American former bishop? I think he came to disbelieve pretty much all of it.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I can't quite get hold of why anyone for whom the story (and I use that word in all its fullness) of the Resurrection has meaning and truth would want to let go of this central tenet... Surely they'd want to keep their faith alive and well?
Probably. But there's two questions here. Did the physical resurrection actually happen? And is believing that it did essential for a faith to be reasonably described as Christian?
My answers are no and no. The first I explained in a previous post. The second is more interesting. If a positive attachment to the stories of Jesus are the foundation of Christianity, I don't think it makes any sense to insist on belief in one particular interpretation as historical fact. Unless of course you want to use Christianity for building a political empire or managing a religious institution.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
Did the physical resurrection actually happen? And is believing that it did essential for a faith to be reasonably described as Christian?
My answers are no and no. The first I explained in a previous post.
I looked for this "previous post" of yours in which you explained why you believe that the physical resurrection of Jesus didn't happen, but, alas, I couldn't see it.
Could you direct me to it? I would like to assess your reasoning.
Thanks.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Could you direct me to it?
Certainly.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
None of this is about the rightness or wrongness of these alternate beliefs.
It most certainly is. It can't NOT be about the rightness or wrongness of the alternate beliefs, as you go on to demonstrate.
quote:
It is circular reasoning to suggest that because the canonical gospels support physical resurrection that it is therefore what was held at the start, because if the books were selected by those who had the belief they selected the ones which supported the belief and omitted the others. There is info to suggest that the disparate books were actively suppressed as well.
Your assertion does not follow from your "because." Anyway the canonical gospels are far, far older than the gnostic gospels, and it's their age, and the witness of the Apostolic Fathers, that date the belief in the resurrection early. So you are misrepresenting my argument.
The fact the gnostic gospels were actively suppressed supports your argument how? It is part and parcel of the early church seeing that they were not in keeping with the apostolic teaching, and were causing harm to the Church.
quote:
All of this leads me continually to the query: what if it was not physical and was spiritual. Does this actually change things?
Yes, it does. It means Christianity is not true.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does apply to Spong the American former bishop? I think he came to disbelieve pretty much all of it.
And he was cynically dishonest to continue to draw a paycheck from a church that officially does believe it, and it was craven of TEC not to fire him.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
The canonical gospels are not older. Some are. But some gnostic books are about the same age, and at least the Gospel of Thomas is older.
I don't understand why your Christianity hinges on Jesus' physical rising. Christianity would simply exist differently than it does if our notions about various aspects were different. This is interesting. This is a discussion of what might be and the possibilities.
[ 29. May 2014, 02:40: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
The canonical gospels are not older. Some are. But some gnostic books are about the same age, and at least the Gospel of Thomas is older.
Some material in the Gospel of Thomas may date to the 1st century. The Gospel of Thomas itself as a complete work shows evidence of Gnostic influence which emerged in the second century.
Some Gnostic groups rejected the bodily Resurrection because they rejected the material world completely. Heck, there is one Gnostic passion account which sees the spirit of Jesus leaving the body, laughing because the body is worthless.
The bodily Resurrection IMHO is the logical result of the Bodily Incarnation. God who took on human flesh at Christmas, raised human flesh at Easter, in the person of Jesus Christ.
[ 29. May 2014, 03:25: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by Tea (# 16619) on
:
This 2002 article claimed that one third of Church of England clergy doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection.
Would a survey of Anglican clergy today yield very different results?
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
I can't quite get hold of why anyone for whom the story (and I use that word in all its fullness) of the Resurrection has meaning and truth would want to let go of this central tenet... Surely they'd want to keep their faith alive and well?
Probably. But there's two questions here. Did the physical resurrection actually happen? And is believing that it did essential for a faith to be reasonably described as Christian?
My answers are no and no. The first I explained in a previous post. The second is more interesting. If a positive attachment to the stories of Jesus are the foundation of Christianity, I don't think it makes any sense to insist on belief in one particular interpretation as historical fact. Unless of course you want to use Christianity for building a political empire or managing a religious institution.
As I said in my other post, for me belief that something remarkable happened at that first Easter is central to my faith and has been central to the faith of the majority of Christians ever since.That something remarkable was described in the creeds as "on the third day he rose again" and the stories were written in the Gospels. And no, we cannot prove any of it forensically and I have friends who cannot accept it as fact but who would still call themselves Christians.
I have always felt it was right to accept people's own descriptions of themselves so if someone calls him/herself a Christian but cannot accept the idea of a physical resurrection then so be it.That is their business and is their faith and I'll willingly listen to them and hope they will do the same with me.
I have never forgotten something said by the former Dean of Chichester Cathedral in a sermon where he exhorted us to have grace with one another in matters of theological positions and he said:
"The question is not so much, do you believe in a physical resurrection but rather, have you encountered the Risen Christ?"
I come back to this again and again when going through the pain barrier if re-examining my faith.
As to your final point, it's difficult isn't it to avoid empire-building? And yet as soon as human beings gather together, a corporate identity evolves and any organisation then comes up with statements around which they gather...yes it would be wonderful if the church would eschew control and empire building but it would also be wonderful if we could all recognise how difficult it is not to become like this and to try to help the church avoid such pitfalls.
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
if a positive attachment to the stories of Jesus are the foundation of Christianity
'If' is the biggest word you use here. There is no reason to suppose that this is so. The foundation of Christianity for each Christian is a relationship with Jesus. We become attached to the stories because of the relationship we do not form the relationship because of the stories. Faith flows from our response to the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
Why is this important? Because the relationship we have is with the crucified, risen and ascended Jesus not some nebulous ethereal spirit of Jesus. Our physical sufferings and physical death have been shared by God that we may share in His eternal life in the whole of what we as humans are, spirit soul and body, in the physical resurrection of which He is the first fruits.
[ 29. May 2014, 06:39: Message edited by: StevHep ]
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The canonical gospels are not older. Some are. But some gnostic books are about the same age, and at least the Gospel of Thomas is older.
I don't understand why your Christianity hinges on Jesus' physical rising. Christianity would simply exist differently than it does if our notions about various aspects were different. This is interesting. This is a discussion of what might be and the possibilities.
Thing is, I'm not sure Christianity would exist if not for the physical resurrection of Jesus. Would talk of a "spiritual" resurrection have meant anything to 1st century Jews desperately longing for God to come and set them free from Roman occupation? AIUI, people weren't longing for something "spiritual", in the sense of non-physical: they wanted God to change things right there, in the physical world. In that context, if this new "Jesus Movement" within Judaism had started waffling on about a purely spiritual resurrection, I think it would've been lost on most people, or they'd have simply dismissed it.
Not only that: St. N T of Wright reckons, when messianic movements, similar to the movement that grew up around Jesus, had their "messiah" killed - as often happened - they didn't simply carry on in that person's name or claim that their leader had been raised; they either disbanded or chose one of the leader's relatives to continue in their stead. So after Jesus died, you'd have expected his followers either to have disbanded or become the "James movement" or something like that.
But it didn't: they carried on claiming Jesus as their Messiah and said that his resurrection was the sign of this. So something happened that made them take a course of action quite different from any other movements of their kind - and that was persuasive to the others who joined their movement. I'm not sure talk of a "spiritual resurrection" would've cut it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
This 2002 article claimed that one third of Church of England clergy doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection.
Would a survey of Anglican clergy today yield very different results?
It depends how the questions were asked. When I get surveyed, I want to respond 'It depends what you mean by....'
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
if a positive attachment to the stories of Jesus are the foundation of Christianity
'If' is the biggest word you use here. There is no reason to suppose that this is so.
This thread is about about what it is reasonable to assume "Christianity" means. Conservative and fundamentalist Christians like to claim it refers only to their particular set of beliefs. More orthodox members of most churches may want it to mean accepting the creeds their respective institutions have adopted as a basis for membership. But in the world outside church, Christianity can reasonably include any institution, community or individual who has a positive view of God and the Jesus of the Bible.
Your particular beliefs sound broadly evangelical. Clearly Christian, but they don't define Christianity, except perhaps within certain exclusive groups and churches who insist on them as a criteria for membership.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
This 2002 article claimed that one third of Church of England clergy doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection.
Would a survey of Anglican clergy today yield very different results?
There is a difference between "doubted" and "disbelieved."
Disbelieved to me conveys a firm and secure rejection, whereas doubt conveys more of the "I'm not sure of this right now."
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
you presuppose that the belief is not based on reliable evidence;
Yes. On the basis that there can be no reliable evidence that God physically resurrected Jesus, because it's a claim about an event documented only in stories handed down by those making the claim.
This assertion - without qualification - is a non sequitur.
If I claim that an event occurred, am I not to be trusted as a reliable witness because I claimed that the event occurred?
If that is the case, then no witness testimony is possible, ever, anywhere!
The way you have phrased it is unfortunate, but I assume you mean that those making this claim are not reliable, because they wanted to believe in this event for ideological reasons. Correct me if I am wrong about that. But this is the usual objection from detractors. If this is what you are saying, then it is also a non sequitur, because it doesn't follow that wanting something to occur means that you will lie about it occurring or somehow delude yourself that it has occurred. It also implies that the only trustworthy witnesses of the event are those who are either hostile or indifferent to it. In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, those who were hostile would have had a vested interest in denying it, and those who were indifferent would simply have gone the "way of least resistance" and would have probably not been too keen on affirming an event, belief in which might have got them into a lot of trouble!
Clearly those who welcome an event can be reliable witnesses, if it can be shown that there is no reason for them to lie about its occurrence.
It is clear to me, taking into account the political and religious climate of the time, that the gospel writers had no obvious motive to lie. Furthermore, if the early church had engaged in a huge conspiracy, then I have to say that the presentation of the accounts of the putative events has to rate as one of the most inept examples of contrivance ever to appear within the history of literature. One would have thought that conspirators would at least have made some attempt to harmonise their accounts. Lies are generally slick and polished. Those who speak the truth simply bear witness to what they have seen, and one naturally expects differences of perception, and even some small inaccuracies due to human frailty (wow! Does that mean I am not an inerrantist?!).
[ 29. May 2014, 11:49: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Dave Marshall wrote:
Yes. On the basis that there can be no reliable evidence that God physically resurrected Jesus, because it's a claim about an event documented only in stories handed down by those making the claim.
Bit late on this, as I've been mulling it over. But there is a wider problem with supernatural stuff - that there is no method whereby it can be described. Well, people can say, 'I experienced it', which is OK.
But then there no 'limits on possible outcomes'. I mean, that people experience lots of things. How do we separate them out into plausible and implausible?
So using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate, if we are using the term normally.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
So using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate, if we are using the term normally.
'Normally' being code for: "in accordance with the unproven and unprovable philosophy of naturalism, which ipso facto excludes the operation of any factor outside of or above the closed system as described by what we term 'the Laws of Nature'".
A question begging approach, in other words.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
So using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate, if we are using the term normally.
'Normally' being code for: "in accordance with the unproven and unprovable philosophy of naturalism, which ipso facto excludes the operation of any factor outside of or above the closed system as described by what we term 'the Laws of Nature'".
A question begging approach, in other words.
No, that's incorrect. You're confusing a naturalistic method, and a naturalistic philosophy. Science uses the method, but does not incorporate the philosophy. In other words, it studies nature, but does not say, 'there is only nature'.
But the term 'evidence' is associated with a naturalistic method - how then can it be applied to the non-natural or supernatural?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
This 2002 article claimed that one third of Church of England clergy doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection.
Would a survey of Anglican clergy today yield very different results?
There is a difference between "doubted" and "disbelieved."
Disbelieved to me conveys a firm and secure rejection, whereas doubt conveys more of the "I'm not sure of this right now."
Doubt? That word alone raises a good point. I wonder if some of our discussion is due to those (I'm one) who always have an element of doubt, in distinction to others who are certain. Doubt-certainty being the polarity.
Is it acceptable to the *certain* to believe at the level of "might have", "could have", "doesn't matter that much either way"? If not why not?
** you don't have to accept my label and I don't mean to be rude with it.
Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
if a positive attachment to the stories of Jesus are the foundation of Christianity
'If' is the biggest word you use here. There is no reason to suppose that this is so.
This thread is about about what it is reasonable to assume "Christianity" means. Conservative and fundamentalist Christians like to claim it refers only to their particular set of beliefs. More orthodox members of most churches may want it to mean accepting the creeds their respective institutions have adopted as a basis for membership. But in the world outside church, Christianity can reasonably include any institution, community or individual who has a positive view of God and the Jesus of the Bible.
Your particular beliefs sound broadly evangelical. Clearly Christian, but they don't define Christianity, except perhaps within certain exclusive groups and churches who insist on them as a criteria for membership.
Broadly Evangelical? Broadly Evangelical! First time this Ultramontane Catholic has been called that. Anyway, I thought this thread was about belief in the Primitive Church not factions in the contemporary one or in the ecclesial communities of the Regormation. The evidence from Acts and the Pauline Epistles is that conversion was always accompanied by the gift of the Spirit, or the gift of the Spirit was always accompanied by conversion. This suggests that attachment to the Jesus stories followed conversion not the other way round which is what you proposed.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I claim that an event occurred, am I not to be trusted as a reliable witness because I claimed that the event occurred?
Not if the event you're talking about happened more than 20 years ago and you're part of a movement committed to a very particular interpretation of whatever occurred. The fact that they were committed enough to still be talking about it long after the fact seems almost irrefutable evidence of some kind of bias. Factor in the nature of claim you're making - a resurrection - and I suspect any fair judge would give your evidence very little credence.
quote:
If that is the case, then no witness testimony is possible, ever, anywhere!
Nonsense. Or if you prefer, a non-sequitur.
quote:
I assume you mean that those making this claim are not reliable, because they wanted to believe in this event for ideological reasons. Correct me if I am wrong about that.
OK. You're wrong about that. I've no idea what the motives were of any particular individual. I suspect most got caught up in whatever local expression of the early church they encountered and took on trust what the leaders said. Much like happens today.
quote:
It is clear to me, taking into account the political and religious climate of the time, that the gospel writers had no obvious motive to lie.
I agree. One of them spelled out that he was telling this story to support a point of view. But any story based on recollections of events 20+ years ago is in itself unlikely to be historically correct in terms of detail. When the actual recollections are tales of sightings of a publically executed man by grieving friends and supporters, fearful that they would be next if they let on they knew him, I don't think it's unreasonable to doubt the writers ever intended their work to be understood as historical fact.
For what it's worth, my take is they were simply recording a myth that had arisen around a charismatic preacher they used to know. More fool us if, 2000 years later, we assume we know better.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I claim that an event occurred, am I not to be trusted as a reliable witness because I claimed that the event occurred?
Not if the event you're talking about happened more than 20 years ago and you're part of a movement committed to a very particular interpretation of whatever occurred. The fact that they were committed enough to still be talking about it long after the fact seems almost irrefutable evidence of some kind of bias. Factor in the nature of claim you're making - a resurrection - and I suspect any fair judge would give your evidence very little credence.
Logic problem here. If something truly extraordinary happens and I witness it, and the event is something that by its very nature has strong implications for my life, then it is completely predictable that you will later find me in a movement, group, lifestyle, whatever based upon that event. If I am a sensible person, I mean. In fact, if such an event fails to change my life in any noticeable way, I would expect a judge to take my unchanged life as evidence that I am either a fool or a liar. If I claim to have discovered an easy, cheap way of making gold out of straw, and yet continue to live in poverty, wouldn't any judge conclude I am either a fool or a liar?
Taking the argument apart--
"Something truly extraordinary happens"--well, the resurrection qualified as that.
"has strong implications for my life"--this would exclude any number of extraordinary things such as seeing a leprechaun in my garden, or being the first to discover a new element, etc. Those events may be a nine-days'-wonder, and I may yak about them to all my friends, but it probably ends there. No real implications for my life. Maybe a note on my resume. Not much more.
However, the resurrection of Christ, if true, has profound implications for how I personally live and die. I would be a fool to be convinced of its truth and yet make no changes to my life based on this new information. The NT witnesses to the resurrected Christ were most of them not fools. And so they wound up in the early Church, the community of those believing in the resurrected Christ and changed by him.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Broadly Evangelical? Broadly Evangelical! First time this Ultramontane Catholic has been called that.
Ah. An evangelical Catholic! Sorry.
quote:
I thought this thread was about belief in the Primitive Church
That hasn't been my impression, so it seems we're talking about different things. I don't think the history is knowable in any meaningful sense, it's too long ago. But Christianity, that's very much still with us. It's unfortunate that its stories are too often devalued by association with Church institutions and their systems of hierarchical control.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If you go to India, you can meet a ton of people who will tell you that their guru can translocate, can turn water into milk, materialize objects out of thin air, and heal people. Furthermore, they will swear that they have seen it with their own eyes, and I actually believe that they believe that they have.
Well, maybe they have of course. In that case, how do we distinguish all the miracles in the world? I suppose the ones that are meaningful to you, are meaningful to you. Fair enough.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
We may be back to the issue of whether a given claimed miracle has implications for one's life. Out of the list you gave, the healing is the only one that seems to me to fit that bill--and in that case, my first question would be, "So why isn't he down at the local hospital healing people?" That would be the logical working out of such a miraculous ability.
The bits about changing water into milk, etc. seem to me to fall under "odd but who cares, really?" Unless the person either gets himself to a starving country and does this sort of thing en masse, or else works with scientists to find a way to replicate it. Otherwise it's in the category of seeing a leprechaun in the garden.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We may be back to the issue of whether a given claimed miracle has implications for one's life. Out of the list you gave, the healing is the only one that seems to me to fit that bill--and in that case, my first question would be, "So why isn't he down at the local hospital healing people?" That would be the logical working out of such a miraculous ability.
The bits about changing water into milk, etc. seem to me to fall under "odd but who cares, really?" Unless the person either gets himself to a starving country and does this sort of thing en masse, or else works with scientists to find a way to replicate it. Otherwise it's in the category of seeing a leprechaun in the garden.
I think you are taking it out of its cultural context. For the devotees of such a guru, the manifestations mean a lot, and show that he is capable of imparting wisdom and knowledge and liberation. But of course, there are much more sophisticated gurus, who do not do party tricks.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall
The fact that they were committed enough to still be talking about it long after the fact seems almost irrefutable evidence of some kind of bias.
Lamb Chopped has well and truly refuted that assertion (I can't really call it an 'argument'), so no more to add!
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
For me the best example that shows that testimony from "true believers" is not evidence of a kind
that should convince skeptics or would stand in a court of law is the Mormon church.
If we go by the testimony of their eyewitnesses Jon Smithwas a prophet of God. People risked everything including their lives to follow him.
The last bit is used in arguments that claim that the supporters of Jesus had to be right because if not why would they give their lives. So by the same argument Mormons "have" to be right. The main difference is that while we lack contemporary independent accounts for the life of Jesus we have those for John Smith.
I'm not saying that the events in the New testament could not have happened. I'm just saying that the New testament is not "evidence" that would convince skeptics that they did. .
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
This is true of Hindus and Muslims, isn't it? Some of them see their own death as a worthy sacrifice for the faith.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
If we go by the testimony of their eyewitnesses Jon Smith was a prophet of God. People risked everything including their lives to follow him. The last bit is used in arguments that claim that the supporters of Jesus had to be right because if not why would they give their lives. So by the same argument Mormons "have" to be right.
This is a slight straw man, particularly with reference to the level of compulsion indicated by your use of "have". The idea of the eyewitnesses is that, as a historical study, we are bound by a limitation of evidence. It is not really a case of anachronistically applying modern standards of evidence (whether by appealing to some quasi-legal or scientific paradigm) and in effect saying, "[well, it doesn't meet my standards of evidence, so it's probably wrong]" but rather it is asking the question "what are the earliest and most reliable sources we have?".
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The main difference is that while we lack contemporary independent accounts for the life of Jesus we have those for John Smith.
I'm not saying that the events in the New testament could not have happened. I'm just saying that the New testament is not "evidence" that would convince skeptics that they did.
I would love for there to be more compelling evidence that would suit a modern sceptical audience, but we can't conjure it up. So all we are compelled to do is try to look at things in another way. To me, the most efficient is to look at the origins of christianity and ask "how and why did this group arise?"
Bearing in mind that it began as a group of Jews, with reference to a Jewish rabbi, then it seems sensible to look at the Jewish idea of resurrection, how it was prior to the christians, how it changed and then to ask, "why?" - once you ask the sensible questions in a sensible order (and even anachronistically applying Ockham's razor) one is left - after a lot of study & thinking - with the startling conclusion that Jesus' resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for the genesis of christian belief which takes into account all the known factors that we can glean from history.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
The Alethiophile wrote:
Bearing in mind that it began as a group of Jews, with reference to a Jewish rabbi, then it seems sensible to look at the Jewish idea of resurrection, how it was prior to the christians, how it changed and then to ask, "why?" - once you ask the sensible questions in a sensible order (and even anachronistically applying Ockham's razor) one is left - after a lot of study & thinking - with the startling conclusion that Jesus' resurrection is the most reasonable explanation for the genesis of christian belief which takes into account all the known factors that we can glean from history.
The problem with that, as I see it, as that you can indeed trace developments in ideas and symbols in that way, e.g. from an early view of resurrection, to a later one, but how does that then translate into a view that the resurrection actually happened?
Studies in mythology often trace such developments, but I don't think they conclude that therefore a particular myth is true.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there is a wider problem with supernatural stuff - that there is no method whereby it can be described [...] so using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate
Yes, supernatural complicates things. Some people use the word as if it referred to some out there dimension that intersects natural reality when a miracle occurs. Yet it's only ever discernable in the mind of someone who "experiences" it. Otherwise it would be a natural phenomenon that left natural evidence.
The best we can say about the resurrection is that it was real in the minds of those who believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. All the historical claims rest on that.
The story, on the other hand, is as real and inspiring as it ever was. Weighing it down with claims about an intervention from God effectively exclude from church communities anyone who is self-aware enough to recognise that minds can play tricks on us.
[ 29. May 2014, 16:06: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
there is a wider problem with supernatural stuff - that there is no method whereby it can be described [...] so using the word 'evidence' in relation to the supernatural is inappropriate
Yes, supernatural complicates things. Some people use the word as if it referred to some out there dimension that intersects natural reality when a miracle occurs. Yet it's only ever discernable in the mind of someone who "experiences" it. Otherwise it would be a natural phenomenon that left natural evidence.
The best we can say about the resurrection is that it was real in the minds of those who believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. All the historical claims rest on that.
The story, on the other hand, is as real and inspiring as it ever was. Weighing it down with claims about an intervention from God effectively exclude from church communities anyone who is self-aware enough to recognise that minds can play tricks on us.
Yes, it's a brilliant story, which presumably touches on various archetypal themes. But seeing it literally seems odd to me, as if symbols must be concretized and historicized. I suppose people can digest that more easily maybe.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
Another fascinating example is the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson . He died in 1994. But when alive he was so revered by his followers that many of believe that he is still in some way alive. Others are expecting him to come back from the dead. Chabad Messianism
There are many stories of his miracles circulating among his followers. These stories are "evidence" of something. But they don't even convince all Hasidim that they should join the Chabad movement let alone reform or conservative Jews.
The fact that some stories are devoutly believed and make a big difference in the life of those who believe them does not make them "objectively true".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suppose the demand for objective truth becomes acute in the post-Enlightenment period, and with the growth of science and secular philosophy. I always wonder if Christianity adopted a kind of inferiority feeling then, and felt it had to really prove that it was historically true, not just symbolically real.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
Yes and that's unfortunate. How can you prove "objective truth"? All scientific claims are provisional, subject to further revision by new
data. I believe some people took a mistaken idea (that science gives us "objective truth" or claims to do so) and tried to compete with it in those terms.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Yes and that's unfortunate. How can you prove "objective truth"? All scientific claims are provisional, subject to further revision by new
data. I believe some people took a mistaken idea (that science gives us "objective truth" or claims to do so) and tried to compete with it in those terms.
Bloody hell, mate, genius. Also, you get the idea that science = atheism, or science = philosophy, or science = scientific realism. I'm tired from arguing these things now.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But seeing it literally seems odd to me, as if symbols must be concretized and historicized.
Hmmm, yeah... I think it's very strange that people should theorise that there is an actual objectively real person responsible for the posts headed by the symbol "quetzalcoatl". Clearly these posts are just a natural phenomenon, as in, a computer system just generating them. Why can't people just accept these posts for their symbolic value, instead of imagining that there is a real person writing them? (Not that there is such a thing as "objective reality" anyway, of course...)
I guess they must think in these concretised terms, because they can digest it more easily.
Most odd. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the demand for objective truth becomes acute in the post-Enlightenment period, and with the growth of science and secular philosophy. I always wonder if Christianity adopted a kind of inferiority feeling then, and felt it had to really prove that it was historically true, not just symbolically real.
How can something be "symbolically real"? Symbolism means nothing if the thing it symbolises isn't real. A good example if that would be the sacraments: sacraments mean bugger all otherwise.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The best we can say about the resurrection is that it was real in the minds of those who believed they saw Jesus alive after his death. All the historical claims rest on that.
The story, on the other hand, is as real and inspiring as it ever was. Weighing it down with claims about an intervention from God effectively exclude from church communities anyone who is self-aware enough to recognise that minds can play tricks on us.
I agree with your first paragraph. The first witnesses definitely, really believed they saw Jesus physically alive after his death. Their further actions are logically derived from that belief. Now remains only to decide whether they were correct or mistaken in that belief...
The second paragraph, though, I have a beef with. There are plenty of us in the church who are "self-aware enough to recognize that minds can play tricks" on us. We aren't idiots.
We simply hold that in regards to the Resurrection, we have a real occurrence and not a hallucination or other mental trick going on.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Yes. On the basis that there can be no reliable evidence that God physically resurrected Jesus, because it's a claim about an event documented only in stories handed down by those making the claim.
However you evaluate the evidence for a physical resurrection, it must have better support than the idea of a purely spiritual (non-physical) resurrection of the sort referred to in the OP. The spiritual resurrection would be exactly as unusual, and exactly as miraculously, but would lack the eye-witness testimony which (however flawed it may be) supports the concept of a truly physical ressurection.
I would concede that a coherent religion could be constructed on a supposed non-phgysical resurrection of Jesus, and even that such a religion could have great value in objectively improving the moral lives of its adherents. I just can't see any good reason why anyone should believe it in preference to the traditional view.
If something special and unique did happen to Jesus after his death, why not accept the best available evidence about what that was? Or, if you can't believe in the miracle, why not simple accept that Jesus was so inspiring a leader that such stories were made up about him, and learn from him what we can as a man and nothing more? Why would anyone want to believe that a miracle really did happen, just not the miracle that Jesus's closest followers actually claimed to have witnessed?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The first witnesses definitely, really believed they saw Jesus physically alive after his death.
We have no way of knowing that, only some stories written down more than 20 years later.
quote:
Their further actions are logically derived from that belief.
I imagine someone telling a story would want to write it that way.
quote:
Now remains only to decide whether they were correct or mistaken in that belief...
Not if we don't find the claim itself - physical resurrection - a real possibility. I've explained that's where I am.
quote:
We simply hold that in regards to the Resurrection, we have a real occurrence and not a hallucination or other mental trick going on.
I know that. You really, really believe it. But you haven't given me any reason to agree with you.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the demand for objective truth becomes acute in the post-Enlightenment period, and with the growth of science and secular philosophy. I always wonder if Christianity adopted a kind of inferiority feeling then, and felt it had to really prove that it was historically true, not just symbolically real.
How can something be "symbolically real"? Symbolism means nothing if the thing it symbolises isn't real. A good example if that would be the sacraments: sacraments mean bugger all otherwise.
Christian symbols, or in fact, lots of symbols, can be used to refer to non-historical stuff. I know people who see death and resurrection as referring to stuff in their life. Or the virgin birth has been taken to refer to the birth of God in this moment.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I would concede that a coherent religion could be constructed on a supposed non-physical resurrection of Jesus, and even that such a religion could have great value in objectively improving the moral lives of its adherents. I just can't see any good reason why anyone should believe it in preference to the traditional view.
Obviously if you present an alternative to the "traditional view" in such pejorative terms you can make it appear unattractive. The question I was addressing was whether it is reasonable to believe the claim that God physically resurrected Jesus.
I'm not interested in improving the moral lives of the "adherents" of a religion, whatever that means. That's the realm of big brother paternalism, straight out of too much of the Church of England as it is now. But religion as community, built around shared values exemplified in the life and person of Jesus in the Christian story, that's an idea I'm drawn to. The history is academic in that context.
quote:
If something special and unique did happen to Jesus after his death, why not accept the best available evidence about what that was?
Um, what evidence? As I've noted before, there is only a claim documented in stories handed down by those making the claim. Whatever else you're thinking of, "the best available", is teetering on top of that. I'm fairly sure I won't find it convincing.
[ 29. May 2014, 23:45: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
But seeing it literally seems odd to me, as if symbols must be concretized and historicized.
Hmmm, yeah... I think it's very strange that people should theorise that there is an actual objectively real person responsible for the posts headed by the symbol "quetzalcoatl". Clearly these posts are just a natural phenomenon, as in, a computer system just generating them. Why can't people just accept these posts for their symbolic value, instead of imagining that there is a real person writing them? (Not that there is such a thing as "objective reality" anyway, of course...)
I guess they must think in these concretised terms, because they can digest it more easily.
Most odd.
I hope you're not saying that all symbols refer to something physical and concrete. For example, yes, 'quetzalcoatl' might refer to me, and I am physical; but it can also refer to the plumed serpent god of Mesoamerica. Well, OK, maybe he really exists also.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Not if we don't find the claim itself - physical resurrection - a real possibility. I've explained that's where I am.... I know that. You really, really believe it. But you haven't given me any reason to agree with you.
I'm not trying to. I see no point in trying to argue you into Christianity, that's not my job. I was simply pointing out the logical chain--and in one place, actually agreeing with you. Though now you seem to disagree with yourself... but whatever.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
All we ever prove here is that apologetics, rhetoric, the dialectic, reason can't work.
Only love can and we're infantile at it at best. In fact infantile love would be good. I love interacting with babies.
Can Dave Marshall encounter the risen Christ in any of us? Do we see Him in him?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm fairly sure I won't find it convincing.
I'm fairly sure you won't find it convincing too.
My point's much more limited than trying to persuade you of the fact of a physical resurrection. It is simply to assert that the evidence for it is stronger than the evidence for a miraculous but non-physical resurrection. Then live options for me are belief or disbelief in what the disciples claimed to have witnessed. I can see why a reasonable person would believe, or not. I can't see why anyone would believe in a different miracle which is unsupported by testimony, in preference to the one that is.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another interesting example of symbols that don't have to be taken literally or physically, is the ascension.
Have you got ascension deficit disorder? Don't worry, read what Keith Ward said:
"We now know that, if [Jesus] began ascending two thousand years ago, he would not yet have left the Milky Way (unless he attained warp speed)."
I append a charming image, which I hope will not discommode anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/k2pezhz
(Thanks to James McGrath for some of the above material).
[ 30. May 2014, 08:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I hope you're not saying that all symbols refer to something physical and concrete. For example, yes, 'quetzalcoatl' might refer to me, and I am physical; but it can also refer to the plumed serpent god of Mesoamerica. Well, OK, maybe he really exists also.
So why should I believe that you exist? I could simply be talking to a sophisticated computer programme, for all I know.
Perhaps you will feel inclined to defend the theory of your existence by appealing to evidence?
To which I will reply: exactly!
In other words, the discussion should be about evidence, not symbols, which frankly are irrelevant.
But you seem to be saying, that in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, it is odd that people should attach something real and concrete to a symbol. Therefore, by that same logic, it is odd that anyone should attach a real person to the symbol 'quetzalcoatl' as frequently used on this website.
You simply cannot have it both ways!
[ 30. May 2014, 09:50: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, do you believe that the plumed serpent god Quetzalcoatl exists? He might do. I might be his representative in the Home Counties.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
The question of the existence of the plumed serpent god is irrelevant. What you are arguing is that it is 'odd' that people should want to connect a symbol with a reality. The fact that there are symbols that are only connected to fantasy, does not mean that all symbols -especially those pertaining to spiritual things - should be regarded in this way.
There is simply no logic to your position, I'm afraid.
And if we were to think that there is some validity to what you say, then logically we should think it odd that anyone should connect a name - or internet moniker - (which is a symbol) with a real person. Clearly the act of making this connection is not strange behaviour, and this therefore demonstrates the fallacy of your claim.
[ 30. May 2014, 12:34: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I see no point in trying to argue you into Christianity
It would be difficult anyway, as we're both already part of the tradition.
quote:
that's not my job.
Probably for the best.
quote:
I was simply pointing out the logical chain
You've said that, but if you mean this post I couldn't see the logic. You wrote:
quote:
If something truly extraordinary happens and I witness it, and the event is something that by its very nature has strong implications for my life
as if you were referring to something that could be shown to have actually happened. If no-one else saw it, and there was no physical evidence that it had happened, it's just an experience personal to you.
Like, say, me seeing a water vole while walking by the river (they're rare here). If I told my partner she would believe me because a) she would trust me not make something like this up, and b) she's seen water voles in other places.
But if, say, I'd seen her (long dead) first husband and had a conversation with him, it would be an entirely different situation. We would both be concerned for my welfare. Certainly if it happened again we'd want to take steps to find out what was going on in my head. The point being, I don't think it would occur to us that anyone had been physically resurrected. We would assume this was something entirely in my mind that for some reason I was perceiving as real.
Why assume it was different for some early follower of Jesus?
quote:
then it is completely predictable that you will later find me in a movement, group, lifestyle, whatever based upon that event.
It's not a question of "then". The resurrection story is supposed to have originated among a group that were already followers, or at least supporters, of Jesus. Someone says they've seen him alive? After what he said before? Who is going to be the first to say "don't be silly, it's grief/fear playing with your mind".
[ 30. May 2014, 12:59: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The question of the existence of the plumed serpent god is irrelevant. What you are arguing is that it is 'odd' that people should want to connect a symbol with a reality. The fact that there are symbols that are only connected to fantasy, does not mean that all symbols -especially those pertaining to spiritual things - should be regarded in this way.
There is simply no logic to your position, I'm afraid.
And if we were to think that there is some validity to what you say, then logically we should think it odd that anyone should connect a name - or internet moniker - (which is a symbol) with a real person. Clearly the act of making this connection is not strange behaviour, and this therefore demonstrates the fallacy of your claim.
I don't think the plumed serpent is irrelevant. Despite my best efforts in spreading the word in the Home Counties, regrettably I have found few people who believe in Quetzalcoatl. But why is this? Partly just cultural conditioning I suppose.
I don't see all symbols as the same. Thus, the use of names to denote people is fairly well established in many cultures.
You can't really say that because 'Bill' refers to the bloke next door, therefore this is no different from the resurrection (or Quetzalcoatl). They are different kinds of symbols.
Quetzalcoatl is a nice example, since in one sense it is unexceptional, when it refers to me, but in another sense, it is aberrant in our culture, when it refers to a literal plumed serpent god.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
You wrote: "If something truly extraordinary happens and I witness it, and the event is something that by its very nature has strong implications for my life" as if you were referring to something that could be shown to have actually happened. If no-one else saw it, and there was no physical evidence that it had happened, it's just an experience personal to you.
Like, say, me seeing a water vole while walking by the river (they're rare here). If I told my partner she would believe me because a) she would trust me not make something like this up, and b) she's seen water voles in other places.
But if, say, I'd seen her (long dead) first husband and had a conversation with him, it would be an entirely different situation. We would both be concerned for my welfare. Certainly if it happened again we'd want to take steps to find out what was going on in my head. The point being, I don't think it would occur to us that anyone had been physically resurrected. We would assume this was something entirely in my mind that for some reason I was perceiving as real.
Why assume it was different for some early follower of Jesus?
Because there were multiple witnesses, and usually multiple witnesses to the same event, who could (and doubtless DID) compare notes afterward. You seeing adead man while alone on a single occasion is quite different to several hundred people, in groups ranging from two to five hundred, seeing the same formerly-dead man on multiple occasions during a forty-day period.
And in fact that is what the text shows us. The first witnesses (the women) were considered crazy; /but when others (Peter, the ten, the disciples walking to Emmaus) all came back with the same testimony, the balance started to shift; and even Thomas changed his mind after he finally got to see for himself.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The resurrection story is supposed to have originated among a group that were already followers, or at least supporters, of Jesus. Someone says they've seen him alive? After what he said before? Who is going to be the first to say "don't be silly, it's grief/fear playing with your mind".
And yet that's precisely what they said to the women. The disciples don't seem to have felt the qualms you imagine.
By the way, I used "I" because I was trying to avoid the generic "you" which would inevitably be misunderstood as a personal you. We seem to have fallen into the same trap regardless.
And as for the water vole example--I did stipulate "and the event is something that by its very nature has strong implications for my life". Seeing a water vole is not a matter of that sort.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another interesting example of symbols that don't have to be taken literally or physically, is the ascension.
Have you got ascension deficit disorder? Don't worry, read what Keith Ward said:
"We now know that, if [Jesus] began ascending two thousand years ago, he would not yet have left the Milky Way (unless he attained warp speed)."
I append a charming image, which I hope will not discommode anyone.
http://tinyurl.com/k2pezhz
(Thanks to James McGrath for some of the above material).
Quetzalcoatl, love the goofy image. But you need to distinguish between "symbols that don't have to be taken literally" and "events that are both literal and symbolic." Both can exist. I do in fact believe the Ascension happened as specified (though if you recall, a cloud covered him from their sight, and at that point I rather suspect things proceeded in a different and quicker fashion!). But the symbolic meaning of the Ascension is clear--Christ is returning to heaven, is becoming higher/more in authority than all creation, etc. The physical action IS the symbol which conveys the meaning.
Let's take another example (hope this doesn't tangent-wreck the thread): baptism. The spiritual meaning of this is plain--rebirth, washing away of sins, death and resurrection, etc. Yet, if I were to tell you about my son's baptism, you would not say, "Oh, the symbolism is clear, and therefore the water-on-the-head bit never actually happened, it was just symbolic." Yes, it happened. We have multiple witnesses all saying the same thing, and also photographs. Yes, the event also has a symbolic dimension (or spiritual dimension, if anyone's going to get freaked out by the word "symbol" and think I don't believe in baptismal regeneration). That is also real. The two realities, physical and spiritual, do not cancel out one another.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Lamb Chopped
Yes, good examples, although I guess that some Christians don't really see the ascension as a physical movement upwards, do they? Or see heaven as up there?
I think the Eucharist works because it is operating at different levels. In fact, religious ritual generally does this, but then I suppose many human activities do also, if they have a symbolic dimension. If you see 'Hamlet', you might think that's not just about a man procrastinating.
This always reminds me of Camus, who made that famous statement, that a lot of his moral insight came from football. But then he was a goal-keeper, so there is a lot of standing around brooding over one's bad luck.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Actually, I don't see heaven as "up there," if we're going to talk in terms of physical location. But as somebody pointed out, if Jesus is going to leave, and make it clear that this is permanent, no popping up anymore on the beach or at the local coffee shop, well, he can't simply walk away. Or vanish, as he seems to have done with some of the resurrection appearances, only to reappear someplace later.
No, he's got to go, and be seen to be going. As in going, going, gone. And by physically acting out the mythological motif of ascension into heaven, he makes sure they know a) this is (visible) goodbye for quite a while, stop looking behind the sofa, guys, and b) I'm going back to the near presence of God as his right hand Man, that's where I'll be and what I'll be doing when you need me.
This, of course, does not require that he continue to float upward any longer than the disciples can see him for. Once they're out of sight, he can get practical.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I was just looking at some of the fabulous paintings of the ascension, of which there are many famous ones, but here is the Dali one, which I like, but probably, some people really don't.
http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Because there were multiple witnesses, and usually multiple witnesses to the same event, who could (and doubtless DID) compare notes afterward...
According to a story, written down more than 20 years after the event, by those spreading the story. That would only be credible if it backed up more compelling evidence. But there is nothing else.
quote:
The disciples don't seem to have felt the qualms you imagine.
Or, they were committed to what Jesus had being doing and willing to work very hard to keep it going in whatever way they could. Including reworking and retelling the stories that became the Gospels and Acts.
There's no logical justification for saying the stories must be historically accurate. Other things being equal it would be a judgement call for historians. But when a story includes a supernatural claim, other things are not equal. We'll only believe that if we want it be true and no-one can refute it.
That's the case with the resurrection; no-one can prove it didn't happen. So anyone who wants to can believe it, with social pressure from dissenters the only external disincentive. It's an ideal basis for religion, as long as no-one is too concerned about whether it is actually true.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg
The only problem I have with that are the hands; it looks as if Jesus is sliding up parallel bars, in much the same way as a small child is said to have asked of this sculpture (real title: Youth Advances) quote:
where is the bicycle?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg
The only problem I have with that are the hands; it looks as if Jesus is sliding up parallel bars, in much the same way as a small child is said to have asked of this sculpture (real title: Youth Advances) quote:
where is the bicycle?
Yes, the hands are odd; I'm sure there is a meaning to it, as Dali probably composed it very carefully. Some people object to the female figure, presumably Mary, as it is Dali's wife. I like the cosmic feel to it, as if earth and heaven are telescoped into one.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Here is John Donne, in fine form, on the ascension:
Nor doth he by ascending show alone,
But first He, and He first enters the way.
O strong Ram, which hast batter’d heaven for me!
Mild lamb, which with Thy Blood hast mark’d the path!
Bright Torch, which shinest, that I the way may see!
O, with Thy own Blood quench Thy own just wrath;
And if Thy Holy Spirit my Muse did raise,
Deign at my hands this crown of prayer and praise.
(La Coruna).
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the hands are odd; I'm sure there is a meaning to it, as Dali probably composed it very carefully. Some people object to the female figure, presumably Mary, as it is Dali's wife. I like the cosmic feel to it, as if earth and heaven are telescoped into one.
It also reminds me of when Neo's body is carried away by the machines in The Matrix Revolutions. Or should that be the other way around?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just looking at some of the fabulous paintings of the ascension, of which there are many famous ones, but here is the Dali one, which I like, but probably, some people really don't.
http://reflectious.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/1-ascension-dali.jpg
I love the dirty feet and the birth/death symbolism of the fertilised egg/sunflower.
Personally I don't mind whether Jesus was raised bodily or not. I hold on to the promise of eternal life, but how that occurs I will leave up to God.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
By the burst thingies around the hands, I suspect it's meant to represent creative power.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
That Christ literally ascended makes any symbolism attached to it all the more real. As I said, symbolism means nought otherwise.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think the biblical stories support varied takes on the resurrection.
1. There's no description of the resurrection. That is, no account of something happening at the tomb. People visit the tomb and find signs that it has happened already. Instead of descriptions of the resurrection we have descriptions of resurrection appearances.
2. There are some difficulties in building a clear account. Matthew and Mark have the disciples being told to go to Galilee to meet the risen Jesus. Luke has everything happen in Jerusalem, and the disciples seem to stay there until the little ascension that ends the gospel. John has appearances in Jerusalem, but in chapter 21, we find some of the disciples have returned to fishing as if there had been no resurrection.
3. The risen Jesus is weird, and people's reactions to him are weird. He is hard to recognise, he arrives in a room and disappears, and in John 21 no one dares ask him who he is because they all know it is the Lord. But at other times the stories seem tailored to assert his solid physicality. It suggests that the resurrection is something not easily expressed.
4. Several of the longest accounts talk about a change in the disciples. The Emmaus Road story centres on a re-birth of faith in the hearts of the two disciples who are turned from grieving people walking away to excited believers rushing back to Jerusalem. The resurrection happens to them. You could say the same about Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb, doubt giving way at different moments to faith for both of them. And Mary Magdalene in the garden, too, and Peter leaping into the water and hearing the three-fold commission.
I've never felt that trying to hold a belief about what actually, physically happened 2000 years ago was worth the effort for me (and it would be an effort, and for me a belief that takes an effort is terribly insecure as well as intellectually dishonest). But a belief that these stories might help me and others today to move from death to life, that's definitely worth having. That, when I remember it, when I feel it, enables me to live so much better.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think the biblical stories support varied takes on the resurrection.
1. There's no description of the resurrection. That is, no account of something happening at the tomb. People visit the tomb and find signs that it has happened already. Instead of descriptions of the resurrection we have descriptions of resurrection appearances.
This actually, I think, lends credence to the accounts. Nobody was there when IT happened. Somebody could have made something up. If the whole thing was made up, it seems very likely they would have made that up too. But they didn't; they skip over this vital event and give us the before and after -- the things that people actually saw. Almost as if what got written down were the reports of witnesses to the events. Hmm.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I believe that the Resurrection stories are stories written to convey and respond to the Kerygma, the proclamation that Jesus is risen. So, I'm not concerned much about the historical accuracy of the accounts. Whether Mary Magdalene really saw Jesus in the Garden in John's Gospel or whether or not Mary Magdalene is written as the ideal disciple who encounters the risen Christ in the garden of our lives, I don't see a problem with either interpretation.
I learned to view the Scriptures as primarily theology, rather than history.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Ah, hatless, I was wondering when you'd turn up ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
John has appearances in Jerusalem, but in chapter 21, we find some of the disciples have returned to fishing as if there had been no resurrection.
I think "as if there had been no resurrection" is unnecessarily speculative. They don't suddenly exclaim "he is risen" in chapter 21. I think there's plenty of room for them to have met the risen Christ but not quite made sense of it all yet. Peter's return to fishing is often portrayed as him slinking back to his pre-Jesus life, but our bible study group recently decided it's not really that different from popping down to the shops.
quote:
The resurrection happens to them. You could say the same about Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb, doubt giving way at different moments to faith for both of them.
"The resurrection happens to them" has a certain ring to it, but it doesn't make sense of what is related, which is that the resurrection happens to Jesus!
The others realised the truth of the resurrection, perhaps, but in very different ways. The disciples at the tomb drew conclusions from its emptiness; the disciples on the road to Emmaus (belatedly) recognise Jesus.
I agree with you about the weirdness of Jesus' resurrection body (see my comments above) and the diversity of the narratives, but I tend to see them as pointing towards a fact we can't properly apprehend - the reality of the tangible resurrection of Christ - rather than an indication that it didn't happen.
My main reasons for this are firstly, the emphasis on the embodiedness of faith in Scripture, whether in this life or the life to come, secondly that's the way Paul seems to understand it, even if he never specifically mentions an empty tomb.
I should also add (as I did on a previous thread) that I'm not seeking to make a shibboleth out of this and am happy to go with "have you met the risen Christ?" for all intents and purposes of fellowship.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some post-modernists have made the interesting point that we don't need to use the dichotomy of truth or fiction; and that the resurrection is a theological narrative, not a historical one. And a lot of historians seem to agree, in the sense that they see the resurrection as neither true nor false.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
But as far as I can see, a premise of the Gospel narrative is that the resurrection actually is materially true. The narrative only makes sense if it interacts with material reality. Which is why we are to be the most pitied among all men if the resurrection is not true. Or so it seems to me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But as far as I can see, a premise of the Gospel narrative is that the resurrection actually is materially true. The narrative only makes sense if it interacts with material reality. Which is why we are to be the most pitied among all men if the resurrection is not true. Or so it seems to me.
Another interesting question that gets raised is whether, 2000 years ago, people had the same distinction between factuality and narrative that we do, and I don't know the answer to that. 'Material truth' - again, I don't know if this is anachronistic.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another interesting question that gets raised is whether, 2000 years ago, people had the same distinction between factuality and narrative that we do, and I don't know the answer to that. 'Material truth' - again, I don't know if this is anachronistic.
I think that we need to be careful here to distinguish between our criteria of factuality that we use in daily life, and the criteria of factuality that 'we' believe operate when we are doing Enlightenment metaphysics. A lot of postmodernist philosophy gets going by criticising Enlightenment-style metaphysics. But if the aspects of the Enlightenment-style metaphysics that it criticises are absent from the criteria we use in daily life, then the postmodern approach isn't necessarily as revolutionary as it seems.
For example, the correspondence theory of truth, being an Enlightenment-style theory has some ideal of exact one-to-one correspondence between propositions and facts. So that it requires both facts and propositions to be genuine entities of a type such that there could be a one to one correspondence between them. Wittgenstein's Tractatus is the logical working out of that requirement. But if you abandon that one-to-one requirement, along with the specification of facts and propositions in such a way, that doesn't mean you then reject the idea that truth involves some correspondence between sentences and the world.
I think it highly likely that people in the classical world could tell the difference between: this is what happened, we don't know exactly what happened but this is a best guess, and this is something the storyteller just made up. Greek historians put speechs in the mouths of people all the time, in I think lieu of the modern biographer speculating on motives and personality. But that didn't stop Thucydides calling Herodotus Father of Lies. Thucydides at least felt that sometimes Herodotus' narratives departed too much from factuality, and it sounds as if he expected other people to understand what he meant.
Work has been done on early Christians' attitude to the Gospels and stories of Jesus; the conclusion is that they thought eyewitness testimony had a special status.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think the biblical stories support varied takes on the resurrection.
1. There's no description of the resurrection. That is, no account of something happening at the tomb. People visit the tomb and find signs that it has happened already. Instead of descriptions of the resurrection we have descriptions of resurrection appearances.
This actually, I think, lends credence to the accounts. Nobody was there when IT happened. Somebody could have made something up. If the whole thing was made up, it seems very likely they would have made that up too. But they didn't; they skip over this vital event and give us the before and after -- the things that people actually saw. Almost as if what got written down were the reports of witnesses to the events. Hmm.
Yes, I agree that it doesn't look as if someone made up the resurrection. They would have been able to do a far better, tighter, more coherent job, and would have managed not to leave so many loose ends and questions.
But 'witnesses to the events'? The central event, the resurrection, is unwitnessed. We have stories and fragments that are all over the place. They testify to something, but it doesn't look to me like anything at all simple or clear.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Quetzalcoatl: As I've said upthread, I think in 1 Corinthians 15 a clear distinction can be drawn between the bits of Paul's worldview that were contemporaneous on the one hand and on the other, the essence of his argument about why the resurrection, and the fact that it involves a body of some sort, is important.
Would it help understanding if I took the time (no guarantee as to when!) to detail my view on this chapter?
It also seems to me that Paul would not have got into the trouble he did with the Sadducees unless he had a similar concept of materiality to us, and a belief in a material resurrection.
[ 31. May 2014, 08:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ah, hatless, I was wondering when you'd turn up
Thank you! I do, though, have the sense of turning up like a visitor from the past, a dinosaur or someone everyone assumed was dead. There is such earnestness on board these days, such a desire to be good and right. quote:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
John has appearances in Jerusalem, but in chapter 21, we find some of the disciples have returned to fishing as if there had been no resurrection.
I think "as if there had been no resurrection" is unnecessarily speculative. They don't suddenly exclaim "he is risen" in chapter 21. I think there's plenty of room for them to have met the risen Christ but not quite made sense of it all yet. Peter's return to fishing is often portrayed as him slinking back to his pre-Jesus life, but our bible study group recently decided it's not really that different from popping down to the shops.
It's interesting, though. In chapter 21 Peter presumably believes in the resurrection as a fact, as something that has happened to Jesus, but he seems not to have grasped the import of it, or not to have been grasped by it. I think it neatly demonstrates that believing Jesus has risen means nothing without a corresponding something happening inside the believer. quote:
quote:
The resurrection happens to them. You could say the same about Peter and the beloved disciple running to the tomb, doubt giving way at different moments to faith for both of them.
"The resurrection happens to them" has a certain ring to it, but it doesn't make sense of what is related, which is that the resurrection happens to Jesus!
The others realised the truth of the resurrection, perhaps, but in very different ways. The disciples at the tomb drew conclusions from its emptiness; the disciples on the road to Emmaus (belatedly) recognise Jesus.
I agree with you about the weirdness of Jesus' resurrection body (see my comments above) and the diversity of the narratives, but I tend to see them as pointing towards a fact we can't properly apprehend - the reality of the tangible resurrection of Christ - rather than an indication that it didn't happen.
My main reasons for this are firstly, the emphasis on the embodiedness of faith in Scripture, whether in this life or the life to come, secondly that's the way Paul seems to understand it, even if he never specifically mentions an empty tomb.
I should also add (as I did on a previous thread) that I'm not seeking to make a shibboleth out of this and am happy to go with "have you met the risen Christ?" for all intents and purposes of fellowship.
And that closing thought is most welcome and very important. And a consequence of the resurrection.
I don't think that Christianity having the theme of Incarnation at its heart has to mean that every spooky event or vision within it must have literally happened. Indeed, if the resurrection primarily happens in the lives of the disciples (which is what I think the weight of the narratives tells us) then that is properly and sufficiently incarnational for me.
[ 31. May 2014, 08:29: Message edited by: hatless ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
There is such earnestness on board these days, such a desire to be good and right.
There is? I must have missed it... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In chapter 21 Peter presumably believes in the resurrection as a fact, as something that has happened to Jesus, but he seems not to have grasped the import of it, or not to have been grasped by it. I think it neatly demonstrates that believing Jesus has risen means nothing without a corresponding something happening inside the believer.
Yes; my point is that Peter going fishing doesn't mean he didn't already believe in the fact of the resurrection. And I agree that something had to happen to him before it made a real difference - in this case, probably in that exchange with Jesus at the end.
quote:
that closing thought is most welcome and very important. And a consequence of the resurrection.
Thank you. Like I said earlier, I've really struggled with this, largely as a result of a previous Ship discussion on the subject which I have saved somewhere (it must be a couple of years now at least). I stumbled into the discussion without realising how some people use the resurrection in a pharisaical way. But after all the struggle, you can see where I currently stand. quote:
I don't think that Christianity having the theme of Incarnation at its heart has to mean that every spooky event or vision within it must have literally happened.
I agree with you up to there, but I think there's more to it than what you go on to say (even if I can see what you're saying): quote:
if the resurrection primarily happens in the lives of the disciples (which is what I think the weight of the narratives tells us) then that is properly and sufficiently incarnational for me.
I think the resurrection is in a class of its own because it is used to form the basis of so much more in the Acts and the epistles that the other "spooky events or visions".
[ 31. May 2014, 08:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But as far as I can see, a premise of the Gospel narrative is that the resurrection actually is materially true. The narrative only makes sense if it interacts with material reality. Which is why we are to be the most pitied among all men if the resurrection is not true. Or so it seems to me.
Another interesting question that gets raised is whether, 2000 years ago, people had the same distinction between factuality and narrative that we do, and I don't know the answer to that. 'Material truth' - again, I don't know if this is anachronistic.
Dafyd had a great answer. I'm going to throw in my two cents too.
First of all, evidence from the middle ages suggests that if anything, they erred on the opposite side. Fiction was not only recognized but perceived to be "lies" by much of the population*--getting fiction writers in trouble sometimes. In other words, they expected nonfiction to be true, and they expected what we now call fiction to be true also--and when they saw liberties being taken with the historical facts, they got outraged in a way that would never occur to us.
Now the medieval European attitude is no guarantee that first century Mediterranean-ers felt the same way, but I think it a bit more likely than that they had the very sophisticated distinctions between fact, truth, factually wrong but spiritually true, and so forth that a lot of people use today.
* note weasel words--I'm not so stupid as to think everyone was like this.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0