Christianity without resurrection?

[wil]

I’ve often heard Christianity is nothing without the resurrection. Without the resurrection Jesus was just a man. Also that Christ was the only person resurrected. Well we have other resurrection stories in what we Christians like to call mythology and unfortunately they have the same amount of evidence as we. Let me back up. I’m also often called not a Christian because I don’t believe certain things.

So to clarify:

Do I believe Jesus to be the son of G!d? Yes, and I also believe you are a child of G!d.

Do I believe Jesus to be G!d? Yes, and I also believe the same trait lies in you.

Do I believe I have been saved by Jesus? Yes, I believe the teachings have expanded my consciousness to a develop an understanding that I am more than the sum of my physical parts.

Heretic, Blasphemer many say, and yes I am one of many Christians who chooses not to follow the wide path but follow the narrow. Catholic Priest Thomas Moore, Retired Episcopal Bishop John Spong, Writer of US Constitution and President of the US Thomas Jefferson…believers in Christ and in G!d, but not in all the hyperbole, the miracles, the resurrection as literal facts.

Christ is more to me when I wipe away the mythology. He is a man who developed an understanding, an understanding which all women and men can develop should they seek it. I am. I am one.

William, Will I am, I am wil. Yes I’ve tossed out a little ‘l’ and left a little ‘l’ in but realize that UNeyeR1. Thru Jesus the Christ’s understanding, Why call me good?, Why call me master? Only the Father is good and the father and I are one.

The stories, the metaphor, the allegory, the metaphysics, the levels of interpretation when you remove the requirement for literal and historical accuracy, when you understand that it is spiritual thought inscribed by men it comes to life to me.

It is a sea change that Christianity will have to take on if it is to survive, and not go the way of other mythologies.

All my belief, my opinion of course.

 

[Ahanu]

I’ve often heard Christianity is nothing without the resurrection.

Fact is, I am going to hit you upside the head with Lee Strobel's the Real Jesus to clarify that statement! That's what's up D). Yeah, I hear it all the time too.

Well we have other resurrection stories in what we Christians like to call mythology and unfortunately they have the same amount of evidence as we.

I don't know about that one, Wil. What other mythologies do you speak of that feature eye witness accounts of the resurrection like Christianity does? I do not know of any. I mean, you have pretty reliable evidence here. Paul, Peter, and James, for instance, all witnessed the resurrected Christ, and so did over 500 other people. Afterwards, tradition from all the Church Fathers, except for the heretical Origen, backs this fact up. Seems like a supernatural God may of intervened shortly after Jesus' death and really resurrected Him.

The stories, the metaphor, the allegory, the metaphysics, the levels of interpretation when you remove the requirement for literal and historical accuracy, when you understand that it is spiritual thought inscribed by men it comes to life to me.

I agree with you here, though! For me, when Thomas touched Jesus' body, it was much like a person touching the dharma for the first time. You know, whoever sees the teachings sees me, but that is just my own personal interpretation.

 

[Dream]

I’m also often called not a Christian because I don’t believe certain things.

Those fops would turn you into a social outcast with their double talk & complacency. They want to believe that a bank robber cannot mouth the words 'Jesus is Lord'. Well best of luck to them. Such people exist to frighten us with their horrible foppishness. How can they say Christianity is a thing of the heart if it is a thing of social standing and acceptance? How can they say it matters to them what things you believe internally? How can they believe that deceivers cannot deceive? I'm sure in their minds people walk around with T-shirts and radiotags that say exactly what's in their hearts. Day-dreams and Double-talk!

"You're a Christian." "You're not a Christian because you don't believe x." "Duck, duck, Goose!"

 

[path_of_one]

I think what is at issue for me is that the focus that many Christian churches have on the afterlife and the End Times seem to overwhelm what I see as the bulk of Christ's teachings, which were not on the afterlife or the End Times, but rather on how to live right now. In this regard, I suppose I'm trying to bring the Jewish-ness forward in my following of Christ's teachings. It seems that Christianity has become mostly about beliefs, and my spirituality is mostly about experience. I have no problems going to an Episcopal church and practicing my spirituality as I see fit, but then it is typical for the Episcopal church to emphasize practice of spirituality rather than consensus of belief.

As for the resurrection... it is a concept mirrored in ancient Celtic mythology, which had gods that died and rose again. It is also mirrored in the annual seasonal cycle, which is why we celebrate the birth of Christ at the Winter Solstice, which was the time to celebrate the rebirth of the sun and the coming new life in spring. I think it has deep meaning, and I don't have a problem with believing in the miracles anyway, but it just isn't the main focus for me. I don't think the point of my spiritual path is to focus on my rewards later, if I get any, or to focus on miracles. The point, to me, is to focus on how I should live today.

Love God.
Love my neighbor as myself.
From those two, all else follows.

Jesus said that we would be judged based on what we did with other people. Did we feed them? Clothe them? Visit them in prison? Heal them? Did we put compassion and love to action? Were we humble in our practice of our faith or did we puff ourselves up on the street corner while praying? A lot of the Gospels is nuts and bolts on how to live with a dose of "keep the faith" with regards to suffering and death.

There's a whole lot of church history I'm still working on understanding, but I figure that if I focus primarily on Christ's teachings, these are (for the most part) clear as day in terms of what they mean, and they give me instruction on what to DO. The rest, I suppose, falls into the category of interesting thought experiments but unnecessary to realize salvation. It isn't what I say or what I believe that makes me a follower of Christ. It's taking up the cross and putting words to action. That's where the rubber hits the road, so to speak.

 

[iBrian]

wil, you're an Arian!

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Wil,

Nothing controversial about this thread, eh?

It is a sea change that Christianity will have to take on if it is to survive, and not go the way of other mythologies.

I would predict the opposite actually. If Christianity throws out the Resurrection, I would predict that it would disappear rather quickly.

 

[Nick_A]

I’ve often heard Christianity is nothing without the resurrection. Without the resurrection Jesus was just a man. Also that Christ was the only person resurrected. Well we have other resurrection stories in what we Christians like to call mythology and unfortunately they have the same amount of evidence as we. Let me back up. I’m also often called not a Christian because I don’t believe certain things.

So to clarify:

Do I believe Jesus to be the son of G!d? Yes, and I also believe you are a child of G!d.

Do I believe Jesus to be G!d? Yes, and I also believe the same trait lies in you.

Do I believe I have been saved by Jesus? Yes, I believe the teachings have expanded my consciousness to a develop an understanding that I am more than the sum of my physical parts.

Heretic, Blasphemer many say, and yes I am one of many Christians who chooses not to follow the wide path but follow the narrow. Catholic Priest Thomas Moore, Retired Episcopal Bishop John Spong, Writer of US Constitution and President of the US Thomas Jefferson…believers in Christ and in G!d, but not in all the hyperbole, the miracles, the resurrection as literal facts.

Christ is more to me when I wipe away the mythology. He is a man who developed an understanding, an understanding which all women and men can develop should they seek it. I am. I am one.

William, Will I am, I am wil. Yes I’ve tossed out a little ‘l’ and left a little ‘l’ in but realize that UNeyeR1. Thru Jesus the Christ’s understanding, Why call me good?, Why call me master? Only the Father is good and the father and I are one.

The stories, the metaphor, the allegory, the metaphysics, the levels of interpretation when you remove the requirement for literal and historical accuracy, when you understand that it is spiritual thought inscribed by men it comes to life to me.

It is a sea change that Christianity will have to take on if it is to survive, and not go the way of other mythologies.

All my belief, my opinion of course.

If Paul is wrong, what is the attraction of Christianity to you? Why not Buddhism or Judaism for example? Christendom must change with the times but the essence of Christianity was from the beginning so doesn't change.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: 1 Corinthians 15

 

[17th Angel]

Christendom must change with the times but the essence of Christianity was from the beginning so doesn't change.

Is that like an order? Do you mean like God you must change!! Or do you mean more like..... People open your freaking eyes and look in a mirror?

 

[bob x]

What other mythologies do you speak of that feature eye witness accounts of the resurrection like Christianity does?

There are no eye-witness accounts. The resurrection stories are the most tampered sections in the gospels, achieving their final forms very late.

I mean, you have pretty reliable evidence here.

I would not say so. The accounts as we have them do not fit with each other at all.

Paul, Peter, and James, for instance, all witnessed the resurrected Christ, and so did over 500 other people.

Paul had "visions", but so have a lot of people. Lots of people in India see Krishna; you may consider Paul's experience to have been different, but you cannot cite it to someone who does not already believe as evidence. From Peter and James we have no accounts of what they saw, and we certainly do not have any confirmation of "five hundred" people seeing anything: don't you think it a little funny that none of the gospel writers mentioned this appearance to five hundred?

 

[Nick_A]

Is that like an order? Do you mean like God you must change!! Or do you mean more like..... People open your freaking eyes and look in a mirror?

I meant that if man made Christendom wants to preserve its influence in the world it must cater to human egotism. The essence of Christianity doesn't cater to egotism but instead offers a means for human "being" to evolve in accordance with the flows of involution and evolution that have been occuring from the begiinning.

 

[17th Angel]

I meant that if man made Christendom wants to preserve its influence in the world it must cater to human egotism. The essence of Christianity doesn't cater to egotism but instead offers a means for human "being" to evolve in accordance with the flows of involution and evolution that have been occuring from the begiinning.

Aaah
*swoosh*
Got it now, thanks

 

[BlaznFattyz]

My hope is not in myself and my faith is not in vain, but it is in Christ who is risen and I am made alive forever in his name. Thanks be to God, which gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[wil]

I don't know about that one, Wil. What other mythologies do you speak of that feature eye witness accounts of the resurrection like Christianity does? I do not know of any. I mean, you have pretty reliable evidence here. Paul, Peter, and James, for instance, all witnessed the resurrected Christ, and so did over 500 other people.

Please provide your eyewitness accounts from Paul, Peter and James (and any of the other 500)

Hi Wil,

Nothing controversial about this thread, eh?

I would predict the opposite actually. If Christianity throws out the Resurrection, I would predict that it would disappear rather quickly.

Namaste Luna,

No controversy, just discussion. Many folks in the US will point to Thomas Jefferson as one of our founding fathers who formed this union on a Christian basis...despite what he believed and wrote in the Jeffersonian Gospels...while he omitted the resurection, I am not willing to throw it out, the story has meaning to me without believing in a literal event.

wil, you're an Arian!

Not educated enough to follow the reference.

If Paul is wrong, what is the attraction of Christianity to you? Why not Buddhism or Judaism for example? Christendom must change with the times but the essence of Christianity was from the beginning so doesn't change.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: 1 Corinthians 15

There is another take I've heard before. a. You are not a Christian and then b. we don't want you as a Christian, go find another religion. I follow the teachings of Jesus, yes he was a Jew but the Jews don't accept him as the saviour, I do. Buddhism doesn't believe in G!d, I do. I'm a Christian.

 

[Dream]

From Peter and James we have no accounts of what they saw, and we certainly do not have any confirmation of "five hundred" people seeing anything: don't you think it a little funny that none of the gospel writers mentioned this appearance to five hundred?

They do not mention it, however two of them refer to his appearance in Galilee (Mar16:7, Mat28:7) and this is agreed with by Acts 1:3 saying he appeared to people for 40 days starting in Galilee. The gospel writers focused upon different things, and each gospel ends when Jesus leaves or soon after. The gospels are supposed to have been written to people that were already believers, so that's probably why the 500 don't specifically appear.

To the Christian writers it could make sense that the 500's in Exodus 30 were related to the 500 reeds measurement of Ezekiel's vision of a temple (Ez 40:2), with its magical measurements of 500 by 500 'reeds' square (42:20). In Christian writings Ezekiel's temple comes 'down from heaven'. James likely refers to this temple, a temple of believers, when he talks about wisdom and lights from heaven. I can't promise he was alluding to Ezekiel, however both James and I Peter think of the temple as spiritual replacing physical and use phrases that seem Ezekiel-related. Peter refers to the believers themselves as 'lively stones' in a temple and talks a lot about the inward man versus outward appearance. Additionally 500 shekels of 'free myrr' were used by Moses to mark the Tabernacle and utensils (Ex30:23), all of which were made with donated or 'free will' items. That ties #500 in with the new temple idea, since Christian writers consider all of the rites to be mere shadows or announcements of truly spiritual things that would come after them. To quote: "first in the natural, then in the spiritual."(I Cor15:46) Christians would have considered the freely donated items for the 1st tabernacle as symbolic of their own addition to the new spiritual temple, to which they were added without any person forcing them. They could easily have associated the 500 shekels of myrr and 500 reeds with numbers of people, so #500 witnesses could have been as significant to them as the Holy Spirit falling on the day of Pentecost. I think 2Cor 5:1 alluded to both Exodus 30:23 and Ezekiel 40:1 when it says "a temple made without hands." Additionally, this finds root in the "Stone cut out without hands" of Daniel 2:34 Anyway, it is not strange that the gospels don't mention the 500 as they do not try to be dissertations about apocalyptic references.

 

[Dondi]

The very basis of Christianity rests on the central accounts of the Resurrection story, which are regarded by most Christians as having a historical basis. Now you might reject those accounts because you think they are biased, but the whole concept of salvation taught throughout the New Testament rests with a risen Christ.

If Christ didn't rise from the dead, then whom do we worship? A dead man. What possible good would that do knowing Jesus is rotting in the grave. Sure, He taught the multitudes how to love God and his neighbor, but the Old Testament teaches that. If His teachings were the only thing we have, and certainly they ignited a much needed flame in 1st century Palistine, then we might as well convert to Judiasm.

But Jesus didn't come off as a mere rabbi. Some of the saying attributed to Him were quite radical and portrayed Him as something more than a prophet.

I am the Bread of Life
I am the Door
I am the Light of the World
I am the Good Shepherd
I am the Resurrection and the Life
I am the True Vine
I am the Way
I am the Truth
I am the Life

"...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." - John 8:24

I mean, look at He was talking to, the Pharisees, the Jewish leaders of that time. He didn't teach like a normal rabbi. He railed them frequently. He pissed a lot of people off, enough to want Him dead.

Who did He think He was?

 

[Dream]

Dondi,

These are the things that Jesus claimed about himself: Jesus considered himself the first of many brothers, a disciple of John the Baptist, and a prophet. He believed he was sent to announce that the kingdom of God was at hand, not physically but spiritually. He honored the eternal and almighty God and worshiped.

Jesus ministry started relatively near (40 years of) the time of the third temple's destruction. Christians believe Jesus was resurrected, that he is a high priest even now, and that he is still the King of Israel alive yet absent from the earth. Christians consider themselves as regents in his absence until all of his enemies (spiritual enemies) are spiritually subdued.

The thing I think you are suggesting he claimed is actually a bit of Platonic thought overlaid upon verses about the Son. These things became of interest sometime after the deaths of most or all of the apostles. The 'I am' phrases you listed are explained here:

• Way Truth Life: Short answer here: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/is-jesus-the-only-way-10056.html#post170687 (post #6)
• Bread of Life: another way of saying 'The Son' in Gospel of John. "The bread of life comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." (John 6:31) The Son explained in http://www.interfaith.org/forum/son-my-thy-the-10208.html#post172979 (post #4) But in short here is The Son: "And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace." "know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God" "You are the light of the world." "because we are members of his body" "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."
  
  [*]Door: (John7:10) reiterating what Jesus said about the Way, also a reference to the Son.
  [*]Light of the World: also calls his disciples the light of the world (Mat5:14) :also a reference to the Son.
  [*]Good Shepherd: Calling current regime bad shepherds from Jeremiah 24:1-3. Cyrus was a good shepherd of the people in Isaiah 44:28
  [*]Resurrection and the Life: reiterating when he said 'the bread of life' above, hence the Son again.

 

[Nick_A]

The very basis of Christianity rests on the central accounts of the Resurrection story, which are regarded by most Christians as having a historical basis. Now you might reject those accounts because you think they are biased, but the whole concept of salvation taught throughout the New Testament rests with a risen Christ.

If Christ didn't rise from the dead, then whom do we worship? A dead man. What possible good would that do knowing Jesus is rotting in the grave. Sure, He taught the multitudes how to love God and his neighbor, but the Old Testament teaches that. If His teachings were the only thing we have, and certainly they ignited a much needed flame in 1st century Palistine, then we might as well convert to Judiasm.

But Jesus didn't come off as a mere rabbi. Some of the saying attributed to Him were quite radical and portrayed Him as something more than a prophet.

I am the Bread of Life
I am the Door
I am the Light of the World
I am the Good Shepherd
I am the Resurrection and the Life
I am the True Vine
I am the Way
I am the Truth
I am the Life

"...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." - John 8:24

I mean, look at He was talking to, the Pharisees, the Jewish leaders of that time. He didn't teach like a normal rabbi. He railed them frequently. He pissed a lot of people off, enough to want Him dead.

Who did He think He was?

Who did he think he was? He was "I Am." This is our potential. We are not "I Am" but rather I am this, that , or the other thing. The Christ is simply "I Am" with a choice of manifestations which is beyond our comprehension since lacking "I am," we are always a this or that.

 

[Ahanu]

Please provide your eyewitness accounts from Paul, Peter and James (and any of the other 500)

Of course we have firsthand witnesses. Well, I am obviously going to give Paul's report of these accounts rolleyes. Not only is it Paul's report, you are also looking at the earliest tradition within Christianity. By the way, I do not mind being wrong; I like to discover new information about this.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Paul had "visions", but so have a lot of people. Lots of people in India see Krishna; you may consider Paul's experience to have been different, but you cannot cite it to someone who does not already believe as evidence. From Peter and James we have no accounts of what they saw, and we certainly do not have any confirmation of "five hundred" people seeing anything: don't you think it a little funny that none of the gospel writers mentioned this appearance to five hundred?

Paul's vision of the resurrected Christ was after the ascension, so it is not the same as Peter, James, and the others. From Peter we have the following report of what he said:

31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses (Acts 2: 31-32).

It is apparent that Luke, or whoever wrote this, that Peter preached that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. OK. This is not a eye-witness account, but is still a relaying of what Peter may have preached.

There is another take I've heard before. a. You are not a Christian and then b. we don't want you as a Christian, go find another religion. I follow the teachings of Jesus, yes he was a Jew but the Jews don't accept him as the saviour, I do. Buddhism doesn't believe in G!d, I do. I'm a Christian.

Paul claimed to follow the teachings of Jesus too! I also take it that Paul preached the material resurrection of Christ. I thought that if you did not follow tradition, then you are not a Christian. Tradition teaches the physical resurrection of Jesus, but it sounds like you are a Christian rebel against your own tradition. Personally you sound more Baha'i too me right here. The Baha'i Faith abrogates tradition.

As you say, "no controversy, just discussion."

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —

Do I believe Jesus to be the son of G!d? Yes, and I also believe you are a child of G!d.

Well the latter statement undoes the uniqueness of the former, doesn't it, so there's nothing particular about Christ. So what you believe is actually a generic and not a particularly 'Christian' doctrine, and the way you express it is not Abrahamic.

Do I believe Jesus to be G!d? Yes, and I also believe the same trait lies in you.

Ditto. Again, you make a statement, and then render it meaningless from a Christian context. In this case, it is certainly not a Christian belief or teaching that we are divine. So that's absolutely not an Abrahamic belief you hold there, either.

Do I believe I have been saved by Jesus? Yes, I believe the teachings have expanded my consciousness to a develop an understanding that I am more than the sum of my physical parts.

Nothing particularly Christian about that notion, either ... in fact it's nothing to do with Jesus, any transcendent doctrine would serve to expand your consciousness. Jesus is not about expanding individual consciousness at all.

but not in all the hyperbole, the miracles, the resurrection as literal facts.

So all those elements that mark 'the Christian distinction', its uniqueness, are the bits you dispose of.
A is a myth,
and B reads like A,
therefore B is also a myth

It's your argument, but it's not a given ... in fact it's very dodgy logic.

Christ is more to me when I wipe away the mythology. He is a man who developed an understanding, an understanding which all women and men can develop should they seek it. I am. I am one.

Wil — you're not affirming Christ, you're just affirming yourself, and adding Christ on as some kind of tag of authenticity, having stripped off all those bit that contradict you.

The stories, the metaphor, the allegory, the metaphysics, the levels of interpretation when you remove the requirement for literal and historical accuracy, when you understand that it is spiritual thought inscribed by men it comes to life to me.

Ditto.

It's a nice and pleasant philosophy, warm and lovely, but it's not Christian, in any sense beyond a generic ethical humanism. This is the Christianity of the absolute minimum:
"What's the very least I am obliged to accept regarding you, that will allow me to get away with calling myself a Christian?"

It is a sea change that Christianity will have to take on if it is to survive, and not go the way of other mythologies.

Wil ... Don't you get it? Your Christianity is nothing but your own personal mythologism — you argue away chance of a Christic actuality, so that all you've got left with is what you choose to pick up out of Scripture that you have already declared unreliable memoir or fiction ...

Sorry Wil, but so far, on our terms, we've lasted 2,000 years. If we depended on your argument, we wouldn't last five minutes ... there's nothing there beyond, in your terms a mythical entity (you've discounted any argument that might suggest He actually existed) you've tagged onto a rather generic, post-modernist, humanist perspective.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

Paul's vision of the resurrected Christ was after the ascension, so it is not the same as Peter, James, and the others. From Peter we have the following report of what he said:

Ooh, good point.

It is apparent that Luke, or whoever wrote this, that Peter preached that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. OK. This is not a eye-witness account, but is still a relaying of what Peter may have preached.

I Peter 1:21 also in Acts True, they are not eye witness accounts from living people, however a living person saying such things nobody would believe either.

...I thought that if you did not follow tradition, then you are not a Christian. Tradition teaches the physical resurrection of Jesus, but it sounds like you are a Christian rebel against your own tradition....

Actually if you don't follow tradition you can still be a Christian. You just shouldn't claim to be an apostle. My opinion is there aren't any apostles, and we don't need any.
I agree with Path of One in post#4 when she says "...but rather on how to live right now. In this regard, I suppose I'm trying to bring the Jewish-ness forward in my following of Christ's teachings." What else is there to do except try to put into action those things we can grasp? Life is short, and nobody can read and process everything there is to read.