Debating the Resurrection

[Thomas]

is this debating the resurrection?

That's a good question.

The debate boils down to this:
Q: What evidence is there for the Resurrection?
A: The testimony of Scripture, and the traditions of the early Church.

That is the foundation of my debate, and that is 'first' foundation of any debate, isn't it? I debate from the standpoint of the truth of scripture.

And really the question is, do you believe it, or do you not? Quite simple.

The Resurrection has always been a no-brainer for orthodox Christianity. So again, either accept it, or don't ... but you can't call yourself Christian, and qualify it according to what seems reasonable to you. Not unless you're seeking to reinvent Christianity in your own image.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi arthra —

We Baha'is believe Jesus was crucified, executed and that He died or was martyred. Where we differ with most traditional Christians is that we believe in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus, that is His Cause was "resurrected" in the hearts of His followers. Some where it says that the body of Christ is the church..

That in fact is not an uncommon view, indeed it was prevalent in the earliest days, and recurs in many guises — for Christians it's fundamentally a form of dualism that sees a radical split between spirit and matter — notably the gnostics of the 2nd century tried to rework Christianity to suit their own dualistic theogonies, and various philosophies down through the ages have sought to separate and divide the unity of body and soul.

Christianity is not dualist, it follows its Hebraic root as a holistic teaching in which 'man' is a deiform and in Christian terms a tripartite being of spirit, soul and body the imago Dei — and in Christian philosophy a human is potentially higher than the angels, for whereas angels are beings of pure spirit and intellect, we are spirit and flesh in union.

The Gospel of St. John was written for the very purpose of refuting such ideas (as does St. Paul, eg 1 Corinthians, quoted above), and one of the accusations against Jesus at his trial was his claim to 'rebuild the temple'.

The First Epistle of John follows the Gospel in seeking to address and resolve a schism that threatened the Johannine community at Ephesus, in which the seccessionists preached a doctrine similar, it would seem, to the Baha'i doctrine.

Thomas

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

is this debating the resurrection? ~
its a shame christianity can show us so much, but not i feel like this.

I don't want to push this too far if it offends Thomas. For myself, I started as a perfectly normal C of E Christian. Over the last ten years or so I have been asking questions and seeking to clarify and expand my understanding, not only within Christian circles but also beyond.

I have a number of difficulties with the physical resurrection story that I think need to be addressed. And being threatened with a sort of internet excommunication for asking questions frankly doesn't help at all.

Why did Christ say to Mary, "Don't touch me" and yet to the disciple Thomas "Put your hands in my wounds"? Why did Christ only give a few sketchy and dismissive replies to questions on the afterlife, but St Paul sees it as pivotal to the faith? Why did his resurrected body differ from his previous body, if it was the same body that had lain in the tomb? Can we be promised a reward in Heaven and still act selflessly?

So far I have not had any answers to these questions. I find the Baha'i approach entirely reasonable. Perhaps this is part of the answer. I should be interested to hear other points of view.

 

[arthra]

Thomas wrote:

That in fact is not an uncommon view, indeed it was prevalent in the earliest days, and recurs in many guises — for Christians it's fundamentally a form of dualism that sees a radical split between spirit and matter

My comment:

Thanks for your post Thomas! If it was prevalent from the earliest days of Christianity and not uncommon then it must have been perhaps the accepted then? And how did it become "uncommon" and repudiated?

Also I'm not sure though that it is properly dualism as that is usually associated say with divinities .. more than one God. I don't think believing that the soul is not totally identified with the body is "dualist", this is a dichotomy you have chosen.

Does not the scripture itself asset:

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 15)

And Paul the Apostle didn't encounter Jesus on the way to Damascus in a physical form as it was after the ascension...

See this is a problem ...

I agree with you Thomas the early church came to enforce a belief that Jesus was physically resurrected ... His body ascended after forty days and sits on the right hand of the Father as the creed says, but it was not always so, that is in the sense of a widely held belief from the "earliest days" of Christianity.

- Art

 

[_Z_]

thomas

The Resurrection has always been a no-brainer for orthodox Christianity. So again, either accept it, or don’t ... but you can’t call yourself Christian, and qualify it according to what seems reasonable to you. Not unless you’re seeking to reinvent Christianity in your own image.

...or see him more clearly

i am not a christian although i am open to it, i am infact a druid, but if i thought the resurrection was right, over say reincarnation [which we generally believe in], then i would discuss it and help let others around me know about it. there are many christian druids but most don’t believe in the resurrection.
in short the notion of the resurrection could be a valid aspect of consideration in debates along with rebirth etc. for that to happen one must extrapolate it and give it some philosophical validity beyond just saying it is true.

i do feel that christianity would eventually fall by the wayside if no attempt is made at qualifying its beliefs, and that would be a shame.

virtual cliff

one thing i wonder about is that christ was kinda resurrected twice, in that he was brought back to life [or brought himself back] and then ascended to heaven. does this not suggest that this is where the resurrection goes?

from what i know of the spiritual realm we don’t feel any different and the dwellers therin don’t feel different. what is it that feels when you touch someone ~ as i see it, it is not the physical form but the spirit that touches! the nervous system is there to give info about our environment, but it is souls that touch, electro-magnetism is simply the medium for that touch in this world.

what i am getting at then is; the resurrected soul is the complete self! without the physical world we don’t need its glove between the souls hand and its earth! [a profound meaning in there somewhere ].

so does it not make much more sense to have a spiritual resurrection?

----------------

i would then go on to say that all would be resurrected! if the devil himself was hanging off a cliff by one arm do you think god would not clasp his hand and bring him to safety? do we think god would not provide a heaven for all one that is not limiting but the exact opposite, where the soul is as free as the wind.

sorry am i being a hippy again.

 

[Snoopy]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.



the last Buddhist Council concerning the Pali Canon was held in 1954 and concluded 2 years later in 1956. there were changes made to the various canon which was updated and continues to undergo some revision and will be published in full on the 'net when it is available.

Sixth Buddhist council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

metta,

~v

I stand collected. But you got my drift I hope?

s.

 

[Ciel]

......... if the devil himself was hanging off a cliff by one arm do you think god would not clasp his hand and bring him to safety? do we think god would not provide a heaven for all one that is not limiting but the exact opposite, where the soul is as free as the wind.

sorry am i being a hippy again.

Z, Are you serious?

Infinite compassion would be to drop the baggage.
Satan you are fired.........
Get on down where you belong.

- c -

 

[juantoo3]

The debate boils down to this:
Q: What evidence is there for the Resurrection?
A: The testimony of Scripture, and the traditions of the early Church.

That is the foundation of my debate, and that is 'first' foundation of any debate, isn't it? I debate from the standpoint of the truth of scripture.

While this may be the point from which you are debating, the article was about whether or not the Jews believed in resurrection, and what precisely the term meant to them in comparison with the Christian understanding of the term...not resurrection: yes or no?

What is more, the "debate" term was merely *the name of the article* as written by the author and published in syndication at least across the US. I goofed when I named the thread, in that I did mean to include that it was a newspaper article.

It was not my intention to spark what seems to me such a frivolous (and meaningless) debate...in that sense, you are correct; "either accept it, or don't ... but you can't call yourself Christian, and qualify it according to what seems reasonable to you."

 

[_Z_]

ciel

Z, Are you serious?
Infinite compassion would be to drop the baggage.
Satan you are fired.........
Get on down where you belong.

yes i am serious! infinite compassion would be to include all [obviously!]; all should be brought to the ‘light’. i see it all as if we are on an island and you can’t cast people down or tell them to f-off as there is nowhere else to go! the message here is to deal with evil not just to segregate it.

juantoo3
so we are asking if the jewish idea of the resurrection was a spiritual one? that perhaps the idea needs revising?

 

[Vajradhara]

I stand collected. But you got my drift I hope?

s.

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

probably... would you consider your point still valid in light of this new evidence?

metta,

~v

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

It was not my intention to spark what seems to me such a frivolous (and meaningless) debate...in that sense, you are correct; "either accept it, or don't ... but you can't call yourself Christian, and qualify it according to what seems reasonable to you."

I am indebted to you for starting an interesting and certainly not frivolous thread. I don't think you intended to ask what the official Christian position is. You could look that up in Wikipedia. The question is: what is the nature of the resurrection? Does it involve the raising of the physical body, or an insubstantial soul, or simply an inspiration in the minds of those you leave behind?

from what i know of the spiritual realm we don’t feel any different and the dwellers therein don’t feel different. what is it that feels when you touch someone ~ as i see it, it is not the physical form but the spirit that touches! the nervous system is there to give info about our environment, but it is souls that touch, electro-magnetism is simply the medium for that touch in this world.

That's interesting Z. John O'Donahue has said that in Celtic tradition the body lies within the soul - not vice versa. Have you ever had the impression that your life extends beyond your conscious physical body? Sometimes I feel the veil is thin and I am almost aware of something on the edge of my consciousness. Perhaps there is a timeless presence to everyone, that is independent of the physical. I just don't know.

 

[Snoopy]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

probably... would you consider your point still valid in light of this new evidence?

metta,

~v

I think so; insofar as the Pali Canon is considered to be the "Word of the Buddha", as in the core, fundamental texts. They may be used as the basis for other books, talks, commentaries etc but I didn't think anyone was looking to do a wholesale overhaul in the manner suggested by wil for the Bible.

s.

 

[Thomas]

Hi juantoo3 —

While this may be the point from which you are debating, the article was about whether or not the Jews believed in resurrection ...

Good point. I've become somewhat side-tracked.

I shall withdraw then, but offer this as the orthodox position:
From the moment of His death upon the Cross, everything that followed is supernatural, and in that sense is a Mystery, and a Revelation.

Christ had prepared His disciples for at least three years for this event, and it still took them by surprise. Even at the Last Supper they were struggling to comprehend the drama in which they were involved.

As promised, full gnosis of the teaching was made known at Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

It was from then that they began to preach.

Outside of the Apostolic Teaching, outside of faith, it is all but impossible to comprehend the Resurrection. It is, after all, a Mystery.

Every contrary argument is an attempt to reduce the Mystery to the manageable, to determine revelation according to one's person reasoning and ratio.

It is essentially reductivist.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

The official Christian opinion about the resurrection is that it hasn't happened yet. This implies there's going to be one sometime in the future. I agree with Thomas on this.

Jewish folks, in my limited experience, seem to think there will be a resurrection, but they don't like to commit to that point of view. They are also reticent to disagree publicly with Rabbinic commentaries, which sometimes go in opposite directions about it. Some Jewish folks really like the reincarnation idea but have varying ideas of how it works. Some think its completely bogus. Overall, they seem to prefer to emphasize living both as if death could be a finality and as if life might be rewarded. Many treat the afterlife as a minor detail on the outside edge of their faith.

A few notable Masoretic scriptures that seem to suggest an afterlife to me:

• Genesis 22:10 -- Abraham may be willing to slay his own heir because he believes that he can be resurrected. That is the Christian point of view about this verse anyway.
• II Kings 4:32 A child is resurrected by Elisha the Prophet's breath (wind).
• I Samuel 2:6 The L!RD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
• II Samuel 19:13 "And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh? God do so to me, and more also, if thou be not captain of the host before me continually in the room of Joab."
• There are many verses where there is a very strong emphasis upon the location of a person's bones. Joseph's bones were carefully removed from Egypt and reburied in Canaan, for instance. (Exodus 13:19)

 

[Ahanu]

Don't forget 1 Samuel 28:11-15.

 

[Ahanu]

Contradictions

Spong, a liberal christian theologian, said:

A final teaser is required to make this introductory column complete. If one were to take the four gospels and read them in the order in which they were written, Mark first, followed by Matthew, Luke, and John, two other undeniable realities emerge. First, the authors of the gospels do not agree with each other in any essential detail of the Easter story except the assertion that Jesus had transcended death. Secondly, reading them in order will show how much exaggeration and growth in legendary material entered the story.

To put content into these two assertions, the reader needs to note, first, that the four gospels do not agree on which women went to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. Someone is wrong. Second, Mark and Luke assert that the women did not see the risen Christ in the garden. Matthew and John assert that they did. Someone is wrong. Third, they don't agree on who was the first person to have a resurrection experience. The candidates mentioned are Cephas (or Peter), the women, the two travelers on the road to Emmaus, and Mary Magdalene. They could not all have been first. Someone is wrong. Fourth, they don't agree on where the disciples were when they first encountered the risen Jesus. Mark says it will be in Galilee. Matthew says it was in Galilee on top of a mountain. Luke says it was never in Galilee, but always in the Jerusalem area. John says it was first in Jerusalem and then much later in Galilee. Someone is wrong.

If Christianity is built on a literal reading of these texts, it is on shaky ground indeed.

-- Beliefnet.com

When I mention that the resurrection of Christ is not physical, Christians usually bring up John 20:27. I find it interesting that this is only mentioned in John. Historically John is the last of the four. . .

 

[Thomas]

Re: Contradictions

If Christianity is built on a literal reading of these texts, it is on shaky ground indeed.

But tradtional Christianity isn't, whereas Spong's argument, on the other hand is, and indeed, as he admits, he finds himself on very shaky ground ... best listen to those who have a better grasp of the development of Christian doctrine, you're on firmer ground there.

(In the argument quoted, Spong assumes as given things which rest on nothing more than his own opinion, a hypothesis at best — it's a disengenuous practice and poor scholarship to present a view, no matter how strongly held, as if it were axiomatic — I know in my essays my tutor would be 'all over' mere assumptions presented as facts)

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

Hello Thomas, I assume you are studying to be a scholar.

I have honestly been puzzled to explain John 20:27. It is helpful for me to know that when I put the gospels in historical order Jesus gets more physical. According to Lee Strobel, I assume that Paul could touch Jesus, too.

Now let us listen to what Lee Strobel, the author of the case for Christ, has to say.

Not only the gospels and not only the Book of Acts, not only Paul's references, but even preceding that, the apostle Paul preserves for us a creed that was recited by the earliest Christians that contains the fundamentals of Christianity-that Jesus died, why? For our sin. That he was buried, that he was resurrected on the third day. This creed has been dated back by scholars from a wide range of theological beliefs to as early as 2-3 years after the life of Jesus.

Here is a creed that emerges so quickly that it couldn't have been the product of legendary development. [It's] not the product of people over long periods of time attributing things to Jesus that didn't really happen.

The Resurrection of Jesus: An Interview with Lee Strobel--church Christ evidence raised Easter disciples -- Beliefnet.com

In this creed Paul records that he personally encountered the resurrected Christ. He says in 1 Corinthians 9:1, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? And he says in 1 Corinthians 15:8, "Last of all he appeared to me also."

This is fair game.

According to Spong,

In Paul's recounting of Easter, there is no Joseph of Arimathea, no angelic messenger, no empty tomb, no women who visit the tomb, and no physically resuscitated body. Paul does use the phrase "on the third day," and he qualifies it with the words "in accordance with the scriptures." He speaks of Jesus as "appearing" to chosen witnesses. But the best clue for understanding what Paul means by "appearing" seems to be that he includes himself in this list of witnesses. He says his experience of resurrection was like all the rest, except that his was last. I know of no one, certainly not Luke writing in the book of Acts, who believes that what Paul saw was the resuscitated physical body of Jesus. Indeed, most scholars place Paul's conversion somewhere between one and six years after the story of the crucifixion, well past the legendary three days or even the expanded 40 days of appearance stories.

Lee Strobel goes on to say:

"It's not just conservative Christians who are convinced," he insisted indignantly. "This is an assessment that's shared by a wide range of scholars from across a broad theological spectrum. The eminent scholar Joachim Jeremias refers to this creed as 'the earlist tradition of all,' and Ulrich Wilckens says it 'indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.'"

This is not secondhand or thirdhand information. It is the firsthand information from Paul himself.

Artha said:

And Paul the Apostle didn't encounter Jesus on the way to Damascus in a physical form as it was after the ascension...

See this is a problem ...

As a scholar, how do you convince me that Paul saw Jesus just as the other disciples in Luke 24:38 and John 20:27? Well, I guess it can't be proved by facts, only by faith. . .

 

[Bishadi]

As a scholar, how do you convince me that Paul saw Jesus just as the other disciples in Luke 24:38 and John 20:27? Well, I guess it can't be proved by facts, only by faith. . .

Maybe he wasn't dead.

1st century; unconscious could have been 'dead'.....

Just as bathing was important to health; baptism.

No refrig: no pork.

Circumcision: in a time period of little bathing; requisite!

Maybe?

 

[Thomas]

Hello Thomas, I assume you are studying to be a scholar.

Yes. Emphasis on studying.

In this creed Paul records that he personally encountered the resurrected Christ.

Whoa! What 'creed'? Not the creed Strobel is talking about ... I know of no credal statement in Christian doctrine that references St Paul.

The Creed that Paul preached was not his own, but the one into which he was instructed and the one professed by his audience.

Strobel seems more informed than Spong, although if he's implying St Paul saw Jesus in the flesh, I think he's made the error of seeing what's not there (whereas Spong seems to make the error of not seeing what is).

+++

As an amateur scholar, I would say St Paul did not encounter Jesus in the flesh, nor does St Paul, nor anyone else, claim as much, as far as I know. He did encounter Jesus, though:
"And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." (Acts 9:4-5)
Not the slightest indication that he saw anything.

Consider this:
"I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:2)
Many believe St Paul is talking of himself, his Damascus experience (the chronology would be right), in which case, not only do we not know if St Paul saw Jesus in the flesh, St Paul himself is unsure if he was in the flesh himself! Did Jesus come down, or was he taken up?

Compare this to:
"Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord." (Acts 9:10)
No confusion here. Ananias knew who spoke to him. Saul did not know, but knew enough to call the voice 'Lord' and the voice does not say 'I am who I am' or 'I am The Lord thy God' but simply, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutist." Very personal, and a communication that leaves Saul blind, until his eyes are opened by Ananias (and his baptism?)

(read on for the 'comedy moment' — when Jesus tells Ananias to find Saul, Ananias asks 'Saul the guy who's hunting us? Saul who's just killed Stephen in Jerusalem? Are you sure?' ... these guys! The Lord appears in a vision, and they want to discuss the matter?! If it were me, I'd have to ask Him to speak up, to hear Him over the knocking of my knees!)

+++

As for Spong:

In Paul's recounting of Easter, there is no Joseph of Arimathea, no angelic messenger, no empty tomb, no women who visit the tomb, and no physically resuscitated body.

I've never read Spong, and the more you quote, the more I'm glad. Before I accused him of disengenuous scholarship ... now I'm saying he's talking crap. The Resurrection is absolutely implicit in Paul's theology, and stated explicitly in Romans 5.

St Paul was a convert to Christianity, speaking to other converts, but the writings we have are not the account of their conversion, but responses to subsequent problems. He doesn't mention what his audience already knows and believes.

This is where Spong, and many like him, go wrong, they make no account of the Sitz im Leben, the setting in place, of the text. Their view is really very narrow, not 'liberal' at all. They've become so skeptical, they're utterly in the dark. All they do is spread uncertainty and doubt, as if it were a virtue.

(And whoever decided Christianity was 'liberal' — not its founder, that's for sure.)

They assume because someone doesn't mention something, there is a huge discrepancy ... the simpler solution might be that Paul didn't bother mentioning those things which everyone knew already, which nobody questioned, and which was not salient to the point he was trying to make.

As a point of interest, the Resurrection has never been the subject of a doctrinal statement in the Roman Catholic Church, nor in the Orthodox, as far as I know, but you can rely on me when I say we believe in it, absolutely!

Without the Resurrection, Christianity is nothing. If you don't believe in that, I can see no point in calling yourself a Christian. There's nothing clever, new or original in its philosophy if you take the Cross out of the equation.

Thomas