If Jesus had not died?

[Polycarp]

It's worth noting that the Resurrection is not, per Paul and the apparent standard of early Christianity even without him, a unique event that happened to Jesus, but that His Resurrection is the single prototype of something promised to all men -- or at least all who turn to and follow God.

And the key point here is obscured by a change in mental orientation between the First Century and now. For both the Jews and the Hellenic civilization that had spread across most of the eastern anicent world, the spirit did survive the body. Go up to Hillel or Xenophon and say, "I have proof of survival after death," and their response would be, "So? Tell me something useful."

But the spirit that supervived the body was impotent, incapble of influencing the world around it, laden with regret and frustration. Achilles' wraith told Odysseus that he would rather be a living swineherd for a day than the dead hero for an eon.

The body was the means by which the spirit was able to will and do, to be an effective living presence. And this is the key to the Resurrection story -- not that Jesus came back from the dead; ghosts had been doing that on a regular basis (cf. Saul and the "Witch of Endor" calling up Samuel's ghost) -- but that He rose in a new and glorified body, transcending the limitations of the mortal body, and that that body is promised to all His followers. Examine I Corinthians 15 from that perspective to grasp how the Resurrection story affected converts to Christianity in New Testament times.

In this regard, I've always found it interesting to note how Spanish addresses living and dying. As you know, Spanish renders "to be" by two distinct verbs: ser for equivalence or permanent state, and estar for temporary condition: Soy libre for "I am [now and always have been] free" vs. Estoy cansado for "I am [at present, as a temporary condition,] tired."

But "I am alive" is Soy viviendo while "I am dead" is Estoy muerto. It's a matter of idiom, to be sure, but Sapir and Whorf would say that there's a real conceptual significance behind the idioms.

[gatherer]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

as to the stories of the Native American legends - yes, that does sound very interesting indeed. I'd love to follow up any links to that you may have.

http://www.geocities.com/willow1d/amer.html

I haven't even checked it out yet. This book is apparently able to be purchased. I checked Barnes and Noble once (walked in physically) and they didn't have it on their list...

Good luck

[I, Brian]

Lordy! That site is hard to read - I'll have to copy/paste the test into word and read it offline.

[sachetm]

Originally Posted by CPInteract

Good thing Jesus Christ had sacrificed his life for our sins.

If he didn't, how would our sins be forgiven?

Directly by God, perhaps. That's what the Jews do. Although I'm not knowledgable, I'd expect that most religions provide a way to relieve their followers of the burden of their sins or wrong-doing.

As a psychologist type, I see the forgiveness of sins to be a way for an individual to extricate him/herself from guilt so that he/she can move forward, more productively, in their life. That's what they do for the individual who gives them up, regardless of the manner in which they unburden themselves of them. It's the process of giving up the burden of the sin that makes the difference, not who receives them. At least for the individual doing it.

Isn't it the belief that Christ accepts sins, thereby relieving us of the burden, that provides the relief from the sins? Is it as important how it's done as it is that the person giving them up believes it's an effective way?

[Dave the Web]

It is interesting to read Polycarp's comments on language. I wonder how much the Aramaic or the Greek conveyed so much more than is readibly conceivable from the English? Truly the Bible is a deep deep well to drink from.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by foundationist

It's interesting to note how the fundamentals are essentially Pauline in origin. Apparently, the Gospels by themselves are not enough. So the teachings, example, and purpose of Jesus according to those scriptures actually appears aside from the fundamentals - which essentially exist upon the principles not of teaching, but of salvation. Thus the writings of Saul of Tarsus take prominence over the sayings of Jesus.
That's how it appears a little from this perspective, anyhow.

You have observed correctly,the fundamentals of the persent Christians have been set by Saul of Tarsus and not by Jesus himself,he was not even aware of this hijacking of the faith in his name,and perahaps it was for this he warned of "false prophets".
Thanks

[Dor]

Originally Posted by inhumility

You have observed correctly,the fundamentals of the persent Christians have been set by Saul of Tarsus and not by Jesus himself,he was not even aware of this hijacking of the faith in his name,and perahaps it was for this he warned of "false prophets".
Thanks

Actually I do not put Paul above or below any authors of the Bible. There are some of us Christians that base everything strictly off the Bible. If it isnt in there then it must have been minor point.

The difference is some people want to pick and choose what they want to believe and follow. That is all well and good too.

I prefer to stay on my narrow path. Everyone who wishes to stay on the wide path can choose to do so.

[moseslmpg]

If Jesus hadn't died, and a few more people knew about it, Christianity would be Gnostic Christianity (well, maybe not). That would be awesome and there might have been less problems with Christianity throughout the ages.

Since it was all about gnosis, the resurrection wouldn't matter. I think the Gnostics also put forth that Jesus didn't have a normal physicaly body to begin with anyway.

[Terrence]

If Jesus didnt die, we would all still be God hating law breakers of God's law and enemies of God. These sort of people dare not die without God's forgiveness!

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

If Jesus hadn't died, and a few more people knew about it, Christianity would be Gnostic Christianity (well, maybe not). That would be awesome and there might have been less problems with Christianity throughout the ages.

Since it was all about gnosis, the resurrection wouldn't matter. I think the Gnostics also put forth that Jesus didn't have a normal physicaly body to begin with anyway.

Good points, moseslmpg. I'm not too up to date on the specifics of your last point, but I'm curious. What do you (or the Gnostics, rather) mean? Got a link? Thx,

andrew

[moseslmpg]

Well, I don't have a link that specifically refers to it, i.e. primary source but I read it in a book by Stephan Hoeller (Gnosticism: New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing). This is the only source I can remember, as I moved on from my Gnostic readings a few months ago. I'll write the important points (comments in between asterisks, emphasis his, please don't ban me if this is not allowed):

Originally Posted by Gnosticism

Indeed, there was doubt whether he ever occupied a physical body like ours. Physical bodies do not walk on water, pass through walls, or shine like the sun...In fact, the canonical Gospels are uncertain regarding the precise nature of the 'resurrection body' occupied by Jesus *evidence given of discrepancies*" (Hoeller, 64).

"The two views agreed that, both before and after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to be occupying a body of flesh. Many Gnostics felt that the body itself might be an appearance (doketos), and thus they were accused of being docetists..." (Hoeller, 65).
*He goes on to speak briefly about the symbolism of the resurrection from a Gnostic perspective on the next 2 pages.*

This book is a great introduction to Gnosticism for anyone who's interested, and it has a pretty exhaustive reading list in the back. I also recommend Hans Jonas' The Gnostic Religion for a more comphrehensive (albeit dated) source.

[Quahom1]

Lol, if Jesus hadn't died...we'd still be waiting...

[BlaznFattyz]

we would be under the curse of the law.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by BlaznFattyz

we would be under the curse of the law.

arrrrghhh! where I live, this is definitely still the case ... uh, again (?)

Perhaps that's part of what the whole coming again thing is about. You know, the Reappearance of Christ?

taijasi

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

In this regard, I've always found it interesting to note how Spanish addresses living and dying. As you know, Spanish renders "to be" by two distinct verbs: ser for equivalence or permanent state, and estar for temporary condition: Soy libre for "I am [now and always have been] free" vs. Estoy cansado for "I am [at present, as a temporary condition,] tired."

But "I am alive" is Soy viviendo while "I am dead" is Estoy muerto. It's a matter of idiom, to be sure, but Sapir and Whorf would say that there's a real conceptual significance behind the idioms.

The verb estar denotes condition or place (which is more likely to be temporary), the verb ser denotes identity. Your example Soy viviendo is incorrect, you say estoy viviendo (I am living) or estoy vivo (I'm alive).
So there really isn't any difference adressing life or death in spanish.