The Resurrection

[wil]

Would you welcome a follow-up question to this wil?

of course...

 

[wil]

I think God can do better than resort to magician's trick to fool an audience into believing in Him ... if not, He's not worth a light ...

Thomas

ah, my thinking exactly...however man needs more, so man invented more??

 

[lunamoth]

My denomoninations thought is that it is the culmination of his teachings. He could have simply ascended, and avoided the cross, but he was teaching us to overcome, and proving the prophecy.

Unity's teaching is that the Ressurection was a historical event then? I admit that surprises me. Or maybe you are referring to the Christian roots of Unity?

Me personally, I don't buy it. I can accept that it could have happenned but I don't believe it is proven.

Like Thomas above, I find this a strange position to take, that you could accept a supernatural event but don't think it took place, but instead the disciples made it up, or it was written into the Gospels because the evangelists did not trust people to believe without a miraculous act.

If the whole message of the Gospels is love and faith, wouldn't it be rather evil to then base the whole religion on a lie? Why trust any of it then?

There is a thought that he and the group were using a drug to immitate death, lowering heart beat, breath etc. Lazurus was a test subject that was written about. I think that is possible, but I think more probable is the followers needed a resurection, a G!d/man to stack this new religion up against the old ones... we need our miracles.

Again, this is even stranger! Now Jesus himself is complicit in the lie! Why would we then trust anything he said? Why bother at all with Christianity? You could go to Hillel Rabbi tradition and do just as well without the subterfuge.

For me it is part of my salvation for sure, the fact that I need to die to my self and be born anew...

On this we can heartily agree.

I won't go further with this because the point of the thread is not to debate this, but of course I invite you to respond to my comments if you wish.

I'll round out with one theologian's response to the liberal theologian Bultmann with respect to the historicity of Jesus ending on the cross, rather than with the resurrection:

John Macquarrie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we, in fact, rest everything on the objective-historical event of the cross alone? Would not the cross by itself hav meant the defeat of good by evil, so that it could not serve as the origin for saving events? We are reminded of Saint Paul's argument: "If Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain." (1 Cor 15:14). And that he believed in an objective-historical resurrection in some sense or other seems clear from his appeal to witnesses (1 Cor 15:5-8)--though Bultmann dismissed the significance of this appeal in a remarkable arbitrary fashion.

Note, I took this quote from my course text, not from the wiki link.

 

[lunamoth]

Marcus Borg (b 1942), a proponent of the "Jesus Seminar" ("Third Quest") suggests "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims — that many of the Gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship."
So in short, his methodology has been disputed and disposed of, but somehow it's product remains as viable.

I have admit I am partial to Borg (and not just because he's a Piskey ). I really liked his The Heart of Christianity and found it a helpful and even inspiring bridge on my way back to Christianity. 'Course, bridges lead both ways and I can see how people could equally use him on their way out. That said, I like Wright better because he holds up all that I like in Borg's work plus a much more profound theology.

I think that there is a sound application of the term 'myth,' to the Gospel story, and it is not the one proposed by Strauss (i.e., made up to make a point and steeped in epic characters and grand gestures). But, the idea of myth as a story that tells us about our relationship with God and our place in the cosmos, I think that does apply. In this case a myth based in historical event.

 

[wil]

Unity has a wide variety of preachers and teachers. Fillmore had his ideas and but more than anything else they expect the students of the teachings be able to make up their own mind. Christians without creed or dogma, exploring the bible in all its glory.

As for the drug experimentation, as I read and understand what was being discussed was this was a spiritual practice...and if one could use this to get out of the line of fire...that would be wrong? If that was the case would Jesus know what was to be written decades later about it?

Is it within the realm of possiblity? I'd say yes, do I think the gospel writers lied? No. I think they wrote exactly what was being reported, the stories that were being told. And when one read the other...he wrote a more upto date version, with the latest stories and additions and corrections from his perspective, for his readers...and the next the same.

So when you and your sibling disagree about the circumstances surrounding an event 20 years ago...is one of you lying intentionally, is one of you making stuff up? No our memory is an interesting thing, and I don't believe it is all just living on a lie...it is a story to me. And I don't need to judge its 'truth' or 'fact' in order to benifit from it.

 

[lunamoth]

Unity has a wide variety of preachers and teachers. Fillmore had his ideas and but more than anything else they expect the students of the teachings be able to make up their own mind. Christians without creed or dogma, exploring the bible in all its glory.

As for the drug experimentation, as I read and understand what was being discussed was this was a spiritual practice...and if one could use this to get out of the line of fire...that would be wrong? If that was the case would Jesus know what was to be written decades later about it?

Is it within the realm of possiblity? I'd say yes, do I think the gospel writers lied? No. I think they wrote exactly what was being reported, the stories that were being told. And when one read the other...he wrote a more upto date version, with the latest stories and additions and corrections from his perspective, for his readers...and the next the same.

So when you and your sibling disagree about the circumstances surrounding an event 20 years ago...is one of you lying intentionally, is one of you making stuff up? No our memory is an interesting thing, and I don't believe it is all just living on a lie...it is a story to me. And I don't need to judge its 'truth' or 'fact' in order to benifit from it.

Thank you for the explanation wil. I have another question but I will move it out of this forum.

 

[lunamoth]

The nice thing about NT Wright is that so much of his stuff is available online.

From: Early Traditions and the Origin of Christianity by N.T. Wright

In a televised conference titled “Jesus at 2000: The Conversation Continues,” broadcast live in America on May 1, 1996, John Dominic Crossan asked, in a puzzled sort of way, what point could there be in Jesus’ being actually and bodily raised from the dead. It would, he said, no doubt be very nice for Jesus, but what use would it be fore anyone or anything else? That challenge comes, I think, from one who has been deeply bruised by his own tradition, by its insistence that certain things be believed without question, and by its sometimes facile and unhistorical assumptions about how bits of Christian theology fit together. I can understand someone coming to believe that a miraculous resurrection that seemed designed simply to legitimate Jesus as a divine being, and thereby to legitimate his followers or their self-appointed rulers as a new hierarchy, leading quite quickly to popes and bishops feasting at table with emperors instead of subverting them with dangerous aphorisms—I can, understand someone coming to believe that this is all folly.3 But that is not, in fact, what the resurrection is about.

The resurrection, as Paul said in quoting what may be the earliest piece of Christian tradition we possess, is about the fulfillment of the purposes of the one true God for Israel, begun in the biblical narrative and left unfinished, waiting not for more ink to be spilt, nor for more masonry to go up on Mount Zion, but for the coming of the Son of David. It is about Israel, called to be the light of the world, strangely and paradoxically fulfilling that calling. It is about the end of exile, the renewal of the covenant, and the forgiveness of sins. And it is about new creation, as what Israel was called to do for the world, her Messiah has done for her and for the world. It is, therefore, about the ingathering of the nations, by the announcing to them that there is another king, namely Jesus, and that there is another way of being human, the way of “forgiveness.” The exile of the human race and of the whole cosmos, not just that of Israel, is undone at Easter. Easter is first and foremost about eschatology.

Only then does Easter imply Christology, though not, even then, in the way normally imagined. Certainly, the resurrection “declared” (as Paul says in what may well be a quotation from yet another piece of early tradition) that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Messiah, “descended from David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3,4). But, in revealing what the Messiah has achieved, bearing Israel’s destiny by himself on behalf of Israel and the world, Easter also draws attention to the enormity of this task to its scriptural background. Easter sheds a light on the cross that the cross, by itself, could never have possessed. Easter and the cross, taken together, declare to the astonishment and perhaps the horror of the church’s first theologians that Jesus of Nazareth had done, for Israel and the world, what according to Isaiah only Israel’s God, YHWH himself, could do.

 

[wil]

Unity's teaching is that the Ressurection was a historical event then? I admit that surprises me. Or maybe you are referring to the Christian roots of Unity?

A lot of Unity members and preachers were/have been so turned off by religion, the bible and Jesus that they rarely speak of it and are quite interfaith. The organization as a whole however and for certain my preacher is very bible based Christianity....a link to a quote from Fillmore on resurection.

The Twelve Powers of Man 1930 - Google Book Search

 

[Thomas]

ah, my thinking exactly...however man needs more, so man invented more??

That is your assumption, not mine.

I don't think either Christ or His disciples were liars or charlatans.

To me a Christian is one who accepts the word in good faith; frankly I think anything else is just hedging one's bets.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

There is a thought that he and the group were using a drug to immitate death, lowering heart beat, breath etc. Lazurus was a test subject that was written about. I think that is possible, but I think more probable is the followers needed a resurection, a G!d/man to stack this new religion up against the old ones... we need our miracles.

This is essentially the line Baigent and crew took in "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." Not sure I buy into it. From there they suggested a Kingship in Europe as the exile for Jesus and his wife Mary Magdelane, becoming the Merovingian dynasty...it is a very seductive line of reasoning, except I was not able to find any corroberating evidence, not even anecdotal evidence. I have yet to find anything regarding this "Merovingian" dynasty. Last I checked (a couple of years ago) there wasn't even a wiki.

 

[juantoo3]

H E G Paulus (1761-1851) was another critic of Scripture. He was a rationalist and a Lutheran by influence so refuted all dogma and anything of the Church. He insisted on a natural explanation for everything that is recorded in Scripture, it's just that the authors were too ignorant to realise it.

D F Strauss (1808-1874) yet another anti-Christian and pantheist theologian who portrayed the "historical Jesus" as whose divine nature he denied, he, with the above, is still considered a pioneer in the historical investigation of Jesus.

Marcus Borg (b 1942), a proponent of the "Jesus Seminar" ("Third Quest") suggests "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims — that many of the Gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that "myth" is not simply to be equated with "falsehood" — have become part of mainstream scholarship."
So in short, his methodology has been disputed and disposed of, but somehow it's product remains as viable.

F Baur (1792-1860), a leader of the Tübingen school of theology argued that Strauss' critique of the history in the gospels was not based on a thorough examination of the manuscript traditions of the documents themselves, but on his own assumptions of the historical process.

A Schweitzer (1875-1965) ended up challenging both the traditional view of Christianity, as well as the views proposed by 'First Quest' German theology. He believed Jesus expected the immanent end of the world upon his death, and that his disciples, illiterate to a man, failed to realise this — the message being changed by later disciples who realised it was too late to turn back.

Schweitzer eventually distanced himself from Reimarus and Strauss, accusing them of too-violently seeking to damage Christianity in pursuing their own philosophical agendas.

This seems the proper point to mention consideration of Thomas Jefferson's view of the matter...except I haven't gone so far as to flesh it out just yet...

 

[juantoo3]

But then surely there would be no resurrection, just a message, and a rather old and tired one, at that. There's nothing Jesus taught, except Himself, that was not orthodox Judaism ...

I suspect some of our Jewish friends might disagree with this assessment.

I have noticed in vague terms over the years, and Crossan pointed specifically in his lecture to specific instances surrounding use of various terms such as "Son of G-d," to things either taught by Jesus or assigned to him by his followers that are distinctly Pagan in origin.

As much as it pains me to say, one of those Pagan mythical similarities is that of the hero resurrecting from the dead.

I want to believe.

The factual veracity is really tough to find.

 

[lunamoth]

I suspect some of our Jewish friends might disagree with this assessment.

I have noticed in vague terms over the years, and Crossan pointed specifically in his lecture to specific instances surrounding use of various terms such as "Son of G-d," to things either taught by Jesus or assigned to him by his followers that are distinctly Pagan in origin.

As much as it pains me to say, one of those Pagan mythical similarities is that of the hero resurrecting from the dead.

I want to believe.

The factual veracity is really tough to find.

Do you fall in the same camp as wil then? You think it could have happened but you need better proof that it did?

What about faith?

I'm only vaguely familiar with the 'resurrected' pagan god-men. I think that these sons of god were supposed to be part god and part human, and when they rose was it to eternal life in God, or was it back to life as we know it, ending in death eventually?

 

[nativeastral]

'easter' has always been a chthonic/fertility festival before any 'written' religion and wasnt there a shrine to Tammuz who rose after 3 days [associated with innanna a sumerian goddess] near Bethlehem? "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15. All is one and one is all, the rest is detail

 

[juantoo3]

Do you fall in the same camp as wil then? You think it could have happened but you need better proof that it did?

I don't know.

This is the one point that really befuddles me. I can see the story of the loaves and the fishes, for example, as allegory, and not come away any the worse for wear. But the resurrection seems to me *the* pivotal and deciding point that seals the deal, the Divine stamp of approval, that sets Christianity apart and validates it.

Without the resurrection, so what if Jesus died for "us?" I don't mean this as sarcastic as it may accidentally come across, but martyrs have died for their causes for as long as history has been written...what makes Jesus *any* different without a resurrection?

Thomas struck a very good point, in that if there was a conspiracy to fake Jesus' death, it really does defeat the purpose and bases the entire faith on a falsehood...quite in opposition to everything it purports to stand for.

What about faith?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, what about it? The more important point to me is what about truth?

I mean no sarcasm here either, my comment is sincere. I suppose faith to me requires a bit more than wisdom stories. My own personal faith is qualified and validated by my own personal experiences. Perhaps the easiest for me to explain is that my faith is not blind, there are confirmations sufficient for me, although perhaps not sufficient for others in a broader context.

I'm only vaguely familiar with the 'resurrected' pagan god-men. I think that these sons of god were supposed to be part god and part human, and when they rose was it to eternal life in God, or was it back to life as we know it, ending in death eventually?

I'm certainly no authority, and I do need to spend a little more time fleshing this aspect out. In my understanding as it stands: for example Zeus was born a mortal and elevated to "godhood." I don't know that Zeus is attributed with going into Hades and returning, but I do recall vaguely at least one of the Pagan hero pantheon did...which evokes a resurrection scenario less directly (unless one considers the Creed[?] that claims Jesus spent three days in Hell preaching to the lost). And Crossan pointed directly to the use of terminology such as "Son of G-d" as applied to the Roman Emperor specifically, in a bid to secure heredity from the Pantheon. I think it was Octavian / Augustus he pointed to as his example, illustrating with an image from a ruin in Turkey, with the Latin inscription clearly visible calling Octavian the Son of G-d. I forget which specific god Octavian claimed descent from...various Emperors claimed descent from Venus / Diana, for example, other Mars / Aries...and in so doing each was a Son of G-d. The term had a specific relevence in early AD Roman occupied Palestine that would not be taken lightly by the ruling authority. In effect, *if* the term was being applied to Jesus during his lifetime, it is no wonder he was viewed by the Roman authority as an insurgent trouble maker...he was being directly associated as co-equal with the Roman Emperor! The underlying suggestion is mutiny or subversion of the ruling government. This is directly from Crossan's lecture with little embellishment on my part.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm certainly no authority, and I do need to spend a little more time fleshing this aspect out. In my understanding as it stands: for example Zeus was born a mortal and elevated to "godhood." I don't know that Zeus is attributed with going into Hades and returning, but I do recall vaguely at least one of the Pagan hero pantheon did...which evokes a resurrection scenario less directly (unless one considers the Creed[?] that claims Jesus spent three days in Hell preaching to the lost). And Crossan pointed directly to the use of terminology such as "Son of G-d" as applied to the Roman Emperor specifically, in a bid to secure heredity from the Pantheon. I think it was Octavian / Augustus he pointed to as his example, illustrating with an image from a ruin in Turkey, with the Latin inscription clearly visible calling Octavian the Son of G-d. I forget which specific god Octavian claimed descent from...various Emperors claimed descent from Venus / Diana, for example, other Mars / Aries...and in so doing each was a Son of G-d. The term had a specific relevence in early AD Roman occupied Palestine that would not be taken lightly by the ruling authority. In effect, *if* the term was being applied to Jesus during his lifetime, it is no wonder he was viewed by the Roman authority as an insurgent trouble maker...he was being directly associated as co-equal with the Roman Emperor! The underlying suggestion is mutiny or subversion of the ruling government. This is directly from Crossan's lecture with little embellishment on my part.

Well, I think the title Son of God is exactly related to this, the point being that not the Ceasar but Jesus is the annointed one. Yeah, it is political and it is half of the equation of why he was in hot water.

 

[wil]

Do you fall in the same camp as wil then? You think it could have happened but you need better proof that it did?

I don't know.

This is the one point that really befuddles me. I can see the story of the loaves and the fishes, for example, as allegory, and not come away any the worse for wear. But the resurrection seems to me *the* pivotal and deciding point that seals the deal, the Divine stamp of approval, that sets Christianity apart and validates it.

Without the resurrection, so what if Jesus died for "us?" I don't mean this as sarcastic as it may accidentally come across, but martyrs have died for their causes for as long as history has been written...what makes Jesus *any* different without a resurrection?

This is all so interesting to me. I don't have this struggle, whether it occurred or doesn't stop me from seeing the potential of a resurection inside of me, of Christ being born in me. You indicate the fishes...there are those that argue till they are blue it is literal, well if literal how many did he feed, why two accounts that are both literal but differ? Faked, a story, real, made up, the value is there without the argument...I have faith in an essence we call the Christ that others may call Krishna or others call meditation, or others find another way to what some call G!d. I believe it is thru him, but I don't need to argue what 'him' is.

Oh how great life is. Love the contemplation here. It is so great when it can go on cleanly, discussing, without someone coming in and saying "No, you are wrong, I am right, listen to me!!"

(returning to hereitics corner...)

 

[lunamoth]

I don't know.

This is the one point that really befuddles me. I can see the story of the loaves and the fishes, for example, as allegory, and not come away any the worse for wear. But the resurrection seems to me *the* pivotal and deciding point that seals the deal, the Divine stamp of approval, that sets Christianity apart and validates it.

It is pivotal.

Without the resurrection, so what if Jesus died for "us?" I don't mean this as sarcastic as it may accidentally come across, but martyrs have died for their causes for as long as history has been written...what makes Jesus *any* different without a resurrection?

I think that is the point in the Maquarrie quote I have above. If it ended on the cross, where is the victory over sin and death?

Religions have launched without their prophets being resurrected, pretty much all of them in fact. A resurrection does not validate a religion, but Christ's resurrection explains Christianity.

Thomas struck a very good point, in that if there was a conspiracy to fake Jesus' death, it really does defeat the purpose and bases the entire faith on a falsehood...quite in opposition to everything it purports to stand for.

Yup.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, what about it? The more important point to me is what about truth?

What keeps you from accepting the resurrection by faith? Are you worried about being wrong? Doubt is part of faith, the shadow of faith...if you have absolute truth you don't need faith.

And, I think , we can never have a shot at truth without faith first.

I mean no sarcasm here either, my comment is sincere. I suppose faith to me requires a bit more than wisdom stories. My own personal faith is qualified and validated by my own personal experiences. Perhaps the easiest for me to explain is that my faith is not blind, there are confirmations sufficient for me, although perhaps not sufficient for others in a broader context.

I know you are sincere. I don't think though that you can find proof or hard evidence for the resurrection. You can find an explanation consistent with the religion. After that it is trust.

This part of the conversation is probably going outside the Theology board intent, which is why I separated it. My bad though...I started us on this tangent!

Perhaps you'll pop up to my thread in Christianity about the supernatural if you wish to follow up this part of the conversation.

 

[juantoo3]

'easter' has always been a chthonic/fertility festival before any 'written' religion and wasnt there a shrine to Tammuz who rose after 3 days [associated with innanna a sumerian goddess] near Bethlehem? "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15. All is one and one is all, the rest is detail

Thank you, nativeastral, but if we're going to play this particular game, let us at least maintain proper context:

1 In the sixth year, in the sixth month on the fifth day, while I was sitting in my house and the elders of Judah were sitting before me, the hand of the Sovereign LORD came upon me there. 2 I looked, and I saw a figure like that of a man. [a] From what appeared to be his waist down he was like fire, and from there up his appearance was as bright as glowing metal. 3 He stretched out what looked like a hand and took me by the hair of my head. The Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and in visions of God he took me to Jerusalem, to the entrance to the north gate of the inner court, where the idol that provokes to jealousy stood. 4 And there before me was the glory of the God of Israel, as in the vision I had seen in the plain.
5 Then he said to me, "Son of man, look toward the north." So I looked, and in the entrance north of the gate of the altar I saw this idol of jealousy.

6 And he said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing—the utterly detestable things the house of Israel is doing here, things that will drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see things that are even more detestable."

7 Then he brought me to the entrance to the court. I looked, and I saw a hole in the wall. 8 He said to me, "Son of man, now dig into the wall." So I dug into the wall and saw a doorway there.

9 And he said to me, "Go in and see the wicked and detestable things they are doing here." 10 So I went in and looked, and I saw portrayed all over the walls all kinds of crawling things and detestable animals and all the idols of the house of Israel. 11 In front of them stood seventy elders of the house of Israel, and Jaazaniah son of Shaphan was standing among them. Each had a censer in his hand, and a fragrant cloud of incense was rising.

12 He said to me, "Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, 'The LORD does not see us; the LORD has forsaken the land.' " 13 Again, he said, "You will see them doing things that are even more detestable."

14 Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. 15 He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this."

16 He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.

17 He said to me, "Have you seen this, son of man? Is it a trivial matter for the house of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here? Must they also fill the land with violence and continually provoke me to anger? Look at them putting the branch to their nose! 18 Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them."

Ezekiel 8,
BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

Thank you BTW, I have been trying to remember this passage for another reason...

But the gist...and context...is a prophecy, a foretelling of things to come. Rather, what is being suggested as past tense, had not yet happened when written...but since has happened. Prophecy fulfilled.

There is a great deal of association between Cush, Semiramis, Nimrod and Tammuz, and their direct counterparts across virtually all of the Mediterranean Pagan mythic pantheon and then some, with direct connection into Babylon. Yes, during the Babylonian exile there was some influence that did rub off onto Judaism, and no doubt in my mind this is some of what Ezekiel is referring to.

However, Judaism to this day still observes Passover. It is Christianity that adopted the Pagan practice of Easter / Oester / Ashtar and all the accompanying trappings. For that we have no further to look than Constantine's documented anti-Semitism and the Council at Nicea...Easter was *not* an early Christian observance.

 

[lunamoth]

...Easter was *not* an early Christian observance.

Ummm...celebrating Christ's resurrection was not part of early Christian observance?