Is Jesus' Resurrection a Fact-Event?

[jiii]

Alright...I'm still kinda confused, but I'm going to try to continue, anyway... (we'll get through this I think ). Before I go into the questions, I also want to ask something for clarification purposes. You defined "fact-event" as something that can be filmed. To me, this means "a physical event"...is that what you mean? I just think that would be a much easier way to refer to things..."fact-event" is a pretty awkward term. One films the physical world with a camera, not the emotional, psychological, spiritual, or what have you. So far as I know, cameras are only good for filming the physical word. So whenever I use the word physical here, that is what I mean. If I am wrong here, please tell me, because it may mean that I wrote this post still not understanding what you're referring to.

I usually don't paste so many quotes, but I think it important for clarity to address a few things.

I now know that you are not a fundamentalist Christian, as I had first thought.

Yes, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I'm not even a Christian. I've read the Bible for enjoyment and philosophical kinds of inquires, but I am not an adherent to Christianity.

I would, however, try to reference some of what I wrote when I say that I think that all literalism is based upon an irrational trust toward ideas.

Are you saying here that some people will believe something just because it sounds like a mysterious idea???

Well, my statement here is very general. I'm saying that many cases of literal Bible interpretation are examples of trust in irrational ideas about physical reality. I'm really not referring to mysterious ideas, at all...unless by mysterious idea you mean "an idea about physical reality that is not supported by rational evidence"...the two don't really sound like cognates. That is what I'm saying people do sometimes believe, specifically. Though, I didn't really say why they believe them in the excerpt you're referring to here, so before I can address your question fully, I need to know if that is what you meant by mysterious ideas.

This is what I think you are saying: Religions talk about faith. Faith is elusive. To make the faith more real they trust irrational ideas so they have "hooks" upon which to hang their faith. It also provides them with measurable evidence regarding "correct belief"--both their own and that of co-religionists.

Here I think you are saying: Religion must be meaningful. Great faith is rewarded. People need something by which to measure how great their faith is. So they invent irrational ideas that must be believed. In being able to say "I believe" to these ideas they are proving that their faith is great enough to be acceptable to God.

For this reason a person like me who questions everything is a very serious threat because I attack the very foundation (though unconscious to them and unknown to me) on which their entire belief system rests.

Yes, that is roughly what I was saying in both cases...but you are wording as though I am saying that is what ALL religions or ALL adherents of those religions do, or ought to do. THAT, I am by no means saying. I think those two points refer only to a small portion of adherents in any religion, many of which are fundamentalists, but not all. Also, for people that believe many things which are irrational and feel threatened by them being questioned, then I guess you would be seen as a threat, naturally.

Whew! this seems like some precariously-built house of cards. Why don't they look deeper? I mean, this does not seem like respectable human thinking. Hopefully, I misunderstand what you are saying.

I think I am starting to get lost here...and then...

May I ask by what authority you say this stuff? What studies have been done to prove it? It sounds totally ridiculous.

--if nothing else, to prove that I am totally mistaken in what I understand you are saying.

...I know I'm totally lost. I don't claim to say any of these things on any authority in particular, I didn't know that is what was expected on a message board where people just share their thoughts. And, studies to prove what? Here's my confusion. Are you against fundamentalism or literal Bible interpretations (such as a physical resurrection) and believe that I am supporting fundamentalism or literal interpretations of certain Bible accounts (such as the resurrection)? Or, are you arguing from the opposite standpoint, that I am saying demeaning things about Christians?

The fact of the matter is, I really didn't take any particular side in my post. It seems like you think I AM talking from a pretty biased perspective, but since I honestly don't feel as though I am, you've gotta be more clear as to what you apparently think I'm advocating here. If you told me why you hoped my ridiculous ideas (just that last paragraph or all of what I said?) were misunderstood, then I could tell you why I say them or with what connotation I meant them. Unfortunately, you seemed to expand upon what I wrote, and then threw me for a curve when, at the end, you said it was ridiculous and that you apparently "hope I didn't mean what you think I mean." Well, I guess to answer what seems to be your most important question, you're going to have to tell me what you "think I mean" or "understand me to mean" overall. Or, in other words, what is it about what I expressed here, in general, that you apparently disagree with?

 

[Dondi]

I'm kinda scratching my head as I read these posts. I'm trying to see some kind of reconciliation with a belief in Liberal Christianity without a Resurrection.

Now I understand the point of looking to Christ as a symbol for the "Ideal". If one would apply the teachings of Jesus to one's life, I believe that they will find an abundant and fulfilling life. further, I think Jesus' teaching parallel many of the other world's religions in that regard. We search for the kind of life that is rewarding and benefitial for others as well as ourselves. We hope that there may come a time when all the peoples of the world could come together in peace and harmony.

But if we only regard Jesus as a mythical, then the process of belief becomes complicated, for I find it difficult to separate the teachings of Jesus from the man of Jesus. If there is no example for these teachings to embody, then it becomes a moot point, doesn't it? However you think of Christ, whether he is God in the flesh, a great rabbi, an ascended master, or even a mythical figure, if these teachings are to have any value, then they ought to have been experienced by that "Ideal" in a real way.

And if you suppose that Jesus was a real person, one cannot escape much of what the NT speaks of in regard to the resurrection. The Apostle Paul made that adamantly clear in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

How can one in Liberal Christianity not take the seriousness the matter of the resurrection? What hope have we if there is no resurrection? We might as well pack Christianity in altogether for if there is nothing beyond this life, then what's the point?

If the resurrection is not a "fact-event", then what does our hope in being resurrected mean? That it won't be a "fact-event" either?

Yes, I suppose it still comes down to a matter of faith, since there is no modern reason to believe that resurrection can occur. But then we are relying on science to prove something that may or may not be historical, depending on your point of view.

But then I haven't been fully convinced of evolution as a purely naturalistic process. There are many areas in the evolutionary model that are still problematic (though I am leaning toward a theistic evolutionary approach). I just can't seem to convince myself that every living thing on earth has come about purely by accident. It seems too contrived. Yet purists would have me believe in a unaided process.

Now I see that the concept of the resurrection has to be directly related to our view of the origin of the universe and the origin of species. For we are basing our rational thought of reality on how we view the natural processes that we believe were involved in bringing us to this moment of time. Our scince is built on the observation of these things, of the material world, uyet there is so much we don't know. We can't even agree on a unified theory. Why? Because the universe isn't behaving like we thought it ought to.

If we are to believe in God, then it is apparent that this God has made Himself about as invisible as dark energy and dark matter, only hypothetically as we seek to experience the spiritual world. They say there are at least six more dimensions that exist beyond the four we can detect with our senses. Would it be a stretch believe that this invisible God couldn't occupy these unseen dimensions with the ability to confound reality as much as the phenonema that confounds our scientific understanding of the universe?

Resurrection seems far fetched for us, but maybe we just don't understand the mechanics of such an event occurring due to our limited knowledge. Which I suppose brings us back to faith. But it is a faith that is hopeful that something like this might have a scientific explanation to it that we don't understand. At least I'd like to think that way.

 

[InLove]

Hi Dondi.

I'm kinda scratching my head as I read these posts. I'm trying to see some kind of reconciliation with a belief in Liberal Christianity without a Resurrection.

(I hope that you don't mind that I did not repeat your post in its entirety. Just wanted something there for reference. Can't see the post number right now.)

I don't know whether or not you are referring to my last post. Just in case you are, I'd like to point out that I never denied that the resurrection literally happened. Nor did I refute the holiness of Biblical Scripture.

Regarding my comments on scientific method, I did say that we do not yet have all the components to prove that the resurrection literally took place. Also, the scientist I mentioned does not embrace all scientific theories regarding creation, evolution, etc.

I would be happy to expound on anything I said if you like, but I have no time to do so right now. Got some pretty serious things going on here in non-virtual life. I just want to be sure that my words are not taken in a context I did not intend. Maybe read over it again? (ingore typos, please!) For all I know, you weren't addressing me, but like I said...just in case.

InPeace,
InLove

"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us" (1 John 4:12).

"Teach thy tongue to say I do not know and thou shalt progress."...Maimonides.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Before I go into the questions, I also want to ask something for clarification purposes. You defined "fact-event" as something that can be filmed. To me, this means "a physical event"...is that what you mean? I just think that would be a much easier way to refer to things..."fact-event" is a pretty awkward term. One films the physical world with a camera, not the emotional, psychological, spiritual, or what have you. So far as I know, cameras are only good for filming the physical word. So whenever I use the word physical here, that is what I mean. If I am wrong here, please tell me, because it may mean that I wrote this post still not understanding what you're referring to.

I think we're on the same track. As explained earlier, I too think cameras are good only for things that happen/appear in physical reality. "Fact event" was someone else's term and it worked for me but "physical event" works, too.

Well, my statement here is very general. I'm saying that many cases of literal Bible interpretation are examples of trust in irrational ideas about physical reality. I'm really not referring to mysterious ideas, at all...unless by mysterious idea you mean "an idea about physical reality that is not supported by rational evidence"

Yes, that is what I meant. It's mysterious in that it makes no sense yet it's written in the Bible and people take it literally.

Ruby: Whew! this seems like some precariously-built house of cards. Why don't they look deeper? I mean, this does not seem like respectable human thinking. Hopefully, I misunderstand what you are saying.

Jiii: I think I am starting to get lost here...and then...

That quote was my response to the idea that possibly people place their trust in irrational ideas just because the ideas require great faith to accept. The idea that a person's belief system depends on an attraction to "mysterious (irrational) ideas" seems to me like a precariously-build house of cards. I find it difficult to understand why they don't look deeper. The part "hopefully I misunderstand what you are saying" meant that I would hope nobody is quite this shallow (to build a belief system on an idea just because it's irrational).

...I know I'm totally lost. I don't claim to say any of these things on any authority in particular, I didn't know that is what was expected on a message board where people just share their thoughts. And, studies to prove what?

Well, normally a person's thoughts are based on something. Studies to prove that:

Specifically, in terms of your question, since what people choose to literally interpret sometimes is already absurd from a rational standpoint, there's really no limit to just how irrationally someone may believe so-and-so ideas...at that point, even uniformity of belief is unnecessary.

****************
​

Here's my confusion. Are you against fundamentalism or literal Bible interpretations (such as a physical resurrection)

Not per se. I am reacting against what the church did to me. It forced me to choose between accepting statements that make no sense (and thereby prove my faith) and being ostracized (not accepted as a community member). That is unfair treatment and I am very much against unfair treatment. Even worse, when I desperately sought to understand the statements that made no sense they refused to give logical or reasonable answers. They acted like they were building on solid statements. No one ever admitted that there was less behind their professions than logical rational thought. I find it very difficult to accept that I was treated so horribly just because they were attracted to irrational statements. This is the kind of stuff I am against. If this translates into literal interpretations and fundamentalism, as it seems to, then I am against those, too.

and believe that I am supporting fundamentalism or literal interpretations of certain Bible accounts (such as the resurrection)?

No I know you don't support fundamentalism or literal interpretations of certain Bible accounts.

Or, are you arguing from the opposite standpoint, that I am saying demeaning things about Christians?

No, I don't think you are being demeaning of Christians. I am just outraged at what the church--my parents, the community as a whole-- did to me. I was ridiculed, scorned, put down, rejected, hated, etc. for wanting to understand the things I was told to believe. Eventually I had to leave.

The fact of the matter is, I really didn't take any particular side in my post. It seems like you think I AM talking from a pretty biased perspective, but since I honestly don't feel as though I am, you've gotta be more clear as to what you apparently think I'm advocating here.

Maybe it's clear by now where I'm coming from. I don't think you are advocating anything. Just trying to answer my question of this thread.

If you told me why you hoped my ridiculous ideas (just that last paragraph or all of what I said?) were misunderstood,

Sorry, no, I don't mean that your ideas are ridiculous. I am taking your word for why people act the way they do. I think it's totally ridiculous that people act this way. I did not suspect it at all. It makes me think less of people. I don't like that. So I am hoping I am misunderstanding and that you did not mean that people act this way for the reasons you gave because I would hope people have given deeper thought to the things they believe than what you suggest.

then I could tell you why I say them or with what connotation I meant them. Unfortunately, you seemed to expand upon what I wrote, and then threw me for a curve when, at the end, you said it was ridiculous and that you apparently "hope I didn't mean what you think I mean." Well, I guess to answer what seems to be your most important question, you're going to have to tell me what you "think I mean" or "understand me to mean" overall. Or, in other words, what is it about what I expressed here, in general, that you apparently disagree with?

Okay, I tried to explain. And it's NOT your ideas that I think are ridiculous, and I am NOT disagreeing with you. Just trying to understand where you are coming from, what you mean by what you say. It is clearer now?

Ruby

 

[taijasi]

John 3:13-15 records Jesus as saying:

"No one has ever gone up into the presence of God except the One who came down from that Presence, the Son of Man. In the same way that Moses lifted the serpent in the desert so people could have something to see and then believe, it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up—and everyone who looks up to him, trusting and expectant, will gain a real life, eternal life. (MSG)

I think of this as the Mystical Christ speaking. This is St. Paul's "Christ in us, the Hope of Glory."

John 12:32 quotes Him again on the subject: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

The lifting up, we must do, regardless of our religious path, or outward code of beliefs (`creed'). The exaltation of the Christ within, is what leads to the appearance (outward fact) of the Christ manifest (the Christ "without," bodily manifest, in whomever).

Dondi, in response to your post, I think an important question is, what do we mean by `Resurrection?' And more specifically, "from the dead." It is here that my answer may diverge from some people's. But I think there will be parallels. I am interested in a scriptural, or historical background for people's belief - or something that proceeds from Myth. I like to capitalize that, too, since I think the teachings of Norse Mythology, or Greek, are every bit as valuable, helpful and Sacred as those of the Hebrew people, or European, or modern-day Westerners. What is our Mythology, btw?

Yes, there are a diversity of answers, among Christians and otherwise. I believe that death begins the next stage of a journey, ending only physical life. I believe in an Immortal Soul, which incarnates, and temporarily at-ones (or attunes) itself to the body, but does not cease to be the Soul thereby. ("Having pervaded this whole universe with a fragment of Myself, I remain." -Sri Krishna, Bhagavad Gita) And I believe that our goal, as humans, is to come unto the Resurrection, just as did Christ Jesus, and pass through all the same experiences.

It is here, that taking the Gospel Story literally, will yield the least assistance, I would suggest, for someone who is seeking to understand the process of the Birth of the Christ within, and it's coming into Perfection - within us (as indicated in Ephesians 4:13). An ideal will exist, but an ideal for what? For the way we all "should be?" And why is that? Why live righteously? Because it matters to God, to each other, to the well-being of the planet?

Ahh, I can accept that, and make it my code, my guidebook, my measuring-stick, and my way of life - if I devote myself and apply myself diligently.

The Mystery of the Resurrection, how someone could literally DIE, and be very, very DEAD, then walk again in the flesh, is something very powerful. I think it is the possibility that it could have happened, which intrigues and invites many - to investigate, and pursue, the meaning underlying Christianity, Christ Jesus, and the Master's Teachings.

Having studied enough Mystery Teachings now to begin to see the Universal Pattern - I do believe in an archetype which I find much more difficult to show missing, than to demonstrate as present, in all traditions. There is a Universalism that makes sense to me, but not the kind of notion that we can stumble around blindly, and just spontaneously become enlightened, or `Redeemed,' let alone `Christs.'

But there again, Redeemed from what? What was this Resurrection thing all about? And if it wasn't just bodily death - then WHAT? Again, as I say, I believe we're all Immortal Souls, incarnated here for a purpose, and NOT born of `original sin,' as such. Yet I also believe in a literal Resurrection, in that Christ Jesus did "all those things" - and if you'd had a video camera, I do think you coulda filmed it, for what it's worth.

And there is Mystery in that. We'd like to know how he did it! From a scientific point of view. And that's why, in my better moments, I try to take a scientific approach to things, too, asking those questions and integrating the answers with religious, philosophical, and common-sensical understanding - to hopefully get a more useful Whole. But that, like all else, is conditional, or limited. Back to Ephesians 4:13.

The Resurrection I think matters most, is the one that has already occurred in the hearts and minds of many, during Christ's Ministry 2100 years ago ... but which has occurred on a much larger, worldwide scale, in the last 130 years or so.

I do feel that my wagon is hitched to the Resurrection in a sense, but it's what that Star signifies to me .... that provides the transformative power, the magic. It is Christ, yet I believe He stands above all the Earth, looking down, and knows us ALL. From within, outward, there is no difference. This, too, is Christ. Somewhere in between ... ahh, that's US, that's the Soul.

And if descent into Generation (incarnation) is a Fall, or death of a sort (symbollically), then the Resurrection takes on an importance to me ... that goes well beyond flesh and blood. Flesh and blood, as a matter of fact, have almost nothing to do with it! And yet, what must occur, must occur while in the body, otherwise we wouldn't be here, now would we?

So flesh and blood - does matter.

How's that? Circuitous enough?

{Wow, oops. Having read to the end of your earlier post, Dondi, I think I see some incredible overlap - and ideas I wish I'd seen the first time around. There was a lot in there! still catching up ...}

In Love and Light,

andrew

 

[Dondi]

Hi InLove,

No, actually, I wasn't even directing my comments in response to your post at all. In fact, they weren't even directed at anyone in particular. These are simply my own reflective ramblings. I'm sorry if you mistook it the wrong way. (In all honesty, I didn't read your post before I wrote this).

But now that I have read your post, InLove, I appreciate that you are similarly open about the matter as I am. I think there is room for the miraculous to have a scientific explanation to it, even if we don't understand what exactly that is.

 

[Dondi]

Dondi, in response to your post, I think an important question is, what do we mean by `Resurrection?' And more specifically, "from the dead."

I would repost your entire post, taij, for you hit on some important points and in a rare moment, I can agree with most of what you have said . But I agree wholeheartedly that our resurrection encompasses not only body, but soul and spirit as well. And that distinction ought not to be overlooked, for old wine doesn't get poured into new wineskins .

I would further offer that this resurrection will not be a mere reanimation of our decayed bodies ala Frankenstein's monster, for the resurrection accounts of Jesus in the Gospels suggests a marked improvement of the physical container in which we will house. If we believe that Lazarus was resurrected after four days rot, we can only venture that he died for good at a later time in the same flesh and blood body that he possessed prior to being inflicted with the fatal illness. Jesus even proclaimed that "flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God". So something more spectacular that we could imagine is the hope we hold now, yet it is still a body of some kind, for Jesus ate fish and honeycomb and retained the wounds of His hands and feet. Very curious.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

I'm kinda scratching my head as I read these posts. I'm trying to see some kind of reconciliation with a belief in Liberal Christianity without a Resurrection.

Now I understand the point of looking to Christ as a symbol for the "Ideal". If one would apply the teachings of Jesus to one's life, I believe that they will find an abundant and fulfilling life. further, I think Jesus' teaching parallel many of the other world's religions in that regard. We search for the kind of life that is rewarding and benefitial for others as well as ourselves. We hope that there may come a time when all the peoples of the world could come together in peace and harmony.

This is the wish of many people. Some people see fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity as the Number 1 reason it is not happening. Both feel it is their sacred responsibility to get rid of dissenters to their faith. If both stick to their guns to the death then there will be MUCH more blood shed before peace can occur.

But if we only regard Jesus as a mythical, then the process of belief becomes complicated, for I find it difficult to separate the teachings of Jesus from the man of Jesus.

I guess you're just very different from me.

If there is no example for these teachings to embody, then it becomes a moot point, doesn't it? However you think of Christ, whether he is God in the flesh, a great rabbi, an ascended master, or even a mythical figure, if these teachings are to have any value, then they ought to have been experienced by that "Ideal" in a real way.

Sorry to disappoint you, Dondi, but Jesus said very little that is original. Read Plato, Aristotle, and all the other philosophers before and during the time of Jesus. Socrates is reported by Plato to have said things that Jesus said (according to the NT account) six centuries later.

I personally don't understand why we need a man Jesus in order to accept, understand, and find meaning in truthful sayings.

And if you suppose that Jesus was a real person, one cannot escape much of what the NT speaks of in regard to the resurrection. The Apostle Paul made that adamantly clear in his first letter to the Corinthians:

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."

You're taking all your evidence from the Bible. Even for secular court, one person's word is not accepted to establish truth. How much more when it comes to something as serious as one's eternal salvation should we seek evidence from more than one source.

How can one in Liberal Christianity not take the seriousness the matter of the resurrection? What hope have we if there is no resurrection? We might as well pack Christianity in altogether for if there is nothing beyond this life, then what's the point?

Why is the resurrection seriously important? What evidence have we that there is anything beyond this life? One life is probably all we get. So let's learn to enjoy and appreciate this one life. You might find this thread helpful in understanding another view.

If the resurrection is not a "fact-event", then what does our hope in being resurrected mean? That it won't be a "fact-event" either?

I think it is wise to be prepared that it is not.

But then I haven't been fully convinced of evolution as a purely naturalistic process. There are many areas in the evolutionary model that are still problematic (though I am leaning toward a theistic evolutionary approach). I just can't seem to convince myself that every living thing on earth has come about purely by accident.

Do you have to? Is it necessary to know exactly how this universe came into being? Not all religions concern themselves with this question. For some of today's Christians, however, it seems to be perhaps the most important question in life. Why? Do they think God can't defend himself?

Now I see that the concept of the resurrection has to be directly related to our view of the origin of the universe and the origin of species. For we are basing our rational thought of reality on how we view the natural processes that we believe were involved in bringing us to this moment of time. Our scince is built on the observation of these things, of the material world, uyet there is so much we don't know. We can't even agree on a unified theory. Why? Because the universe isn't behaving like we thought it ought to.

You know, it's not really the responsibility of us humans to keep the universe in operation. Taking care of our own planet seems to be just a bit more than we can do.

If we are to believe in God, then it is apparent that this God has made Himself about as invisible as dark energy and dark matter, only hypothetically as we seek to experience the spiritual world. They say there are at least six more dimensions that exist beyond the four we can detect with our senses. Would it be a stretch believe that this invisible God couldn't occupy these unseen dimensions with the ability to confound reality as much as the phenonema that confounds our scientific understanding of the universe?

I don't exactly understand what you are saying here. I am not into Buddhist metaphysics. There are things I prefer to just accept on faith, things such as the operation of the universe by some force that I cannot name or understand or imagine.

Resurrection seems far fetched for us, but maybe we just don't understand the mechanics of such an event occurring due to our limited knowledge. Which I suppose brings us back to faith. But it is a faith that is hopeful that something like this might have a scientific explanation to it that we don't understand. At least I'd like to think that way.

Again, why is it important?

 

[lunamoth]

I think it is wise to be prepared that it is not.

Why is it important that we be prepared for the non-factuality of the bodily resurrection?

 

[RubySera_Martin]

So we won't be too disappointed if it doesn't happen. Of course, if we're dead and have lost all forms of consciousness we won't know it I guess. I think there can also be ethical implications. If we think this life is but the preparation for the hereafter we might not take this life as seriously--both negatively and possitively.

Negative: We will think our sins are covered in Jesus' blood and if we miss the mark we can always get forgiveness and acquire eternal life.

Possitive: It's the only life we have so we need to find a way to enjoy it in a healthy way. Experience the good feelings of true happiness that comes from living in harmony and good will with others.

 

[Dondi]

Well, Ruby,

After pretty much dismantling my post, I have a question for you.

How much of Christianity do you wish to keep? I suspect you'll be brief in you answer, for I don't think there is much left, IYHO.

Kinda makes me wonder why you hold onto Christianity at all.

 

[wil]

How much of Christianity do you wish to keep? I suspect you'll be brief in you answer, for I don't think there is much left, IYHO....Kinda makes me wonder why you hold onto Christianity at all.

The blessing of this space... a discussion as to the complete breadth of those that get something out of the teachings, the stories of Jesus and his path to becoming Christ.

There is much mythology and hyperbole in the bible, this we know. The question is how much fact is there. And what has some fact but has been embellished. And this has a variety of answers based on where one is in their thought...Not saying this is right and that is wrong. As has been discussed: none of us were there; there were no video cameras; there were no reporters on the scene taking an active role in correctly documenting the story; untrained eyewitness accounts is fully known by every judge, defense lawyer and prosecuting attorney to be completely unreliable (but extremely convincing to the masses and juries); and we know that stories when retold get modifed for the audience and fish grow bigger over time.

To me these stories are the Christian Mythology and as such have extreme value. Like someone breaking the four minute mile....helps others to follow that direction.

 

[neosnoia]

"Warning, the following might be a bit off topic."

Hi InLove!

I do too. This is what I mean when I say that the Bible is "layered" and “transcendental”.

And orthodoxy agrees. The layering of scripture is not a liberal phenomena (which I didn't know as a fundamentalist).

I came across a post by Thomas yesterday that talked about the four ways to interpret a text:

Literal sense:
the literal meaning of the words, as understood according to the genre of the text. Here one should meditate upon what the words mean - in the parables, such as the treasure hidden in the field, what is the treasure, what is the field?

Allegorical sense:
what the text signifies with regard to objective reality, as opposed to the veils of manifestation and their subjective forms;

Moral or tropological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to how one should conduct oneself according to the nature of the revelation. Essentially in Christianity this sense signifies the practice of virtue towards detachment from the world of appearances and the forging of an immortal soul.

Anagogical or eschatological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to the four 'last things', death and the various eschatalogical states.

I visited an interesting website today (thanks, neosnoia)

You're welcome!

 

[neosnoia]

And that distinction ought not to be overlooked, for old wine doesn't get poured into new wineskins .

Cool interpretation of that text. I've never thought of it that way before.

 

[neosnoia]

Jesus said very little that is original. Read Plato, Aristotle, and all the other philosophers before and during the time of Jesus. Socrates is reported by Plato to have said things that Jesus said (according to the NT account) six centuries later.

This is very true.

Earlier Jewish writers borrowed from Near East philosophy in the writing of the Genesis account and other books.

Jesus was certainly familiar with Greek philosophy. So was Paul, who quoted other thinkers. Both he and Jesus embraced truth wherever they found it.

 

[neosnoia]

You're taking all your evidence from the Bible. Even for secular court, one person's word is not accepted to establish truth. How much more when it comes to something as serious as one's eternal salvation should we seek evidence from more than one source.

That confused me. You're seeking evidence from more than one source because it's important to "one's eternal salvation," which is itself a Biblical concept?

Did I misunderstand? If so, I apologize. It just confused me is all.

 

[neosnoia]

If we think this life is but the preparation for the hereafter we might not take this life as seriously ...

I find this frustrating too, especially since "preparation for the hereafter" is not a Biblical concept, although many Christians believe it is.

The Bible teaches that man will inherit the Earth. This should make us want to cherish and take care of it.

The Bible talks about bringing Heaven to Earth, not going to Heaven.

 

[Dondi]

This is very true.

Earlier Jewish writers borrowed from Near East philosophy in the writing of the Genesis account and other books.

Jesus was certainly familiar with Greek philosophy. So was Paul, who quoted other thinkers. Both he and Jesus embraced truth wherever they found it.

In the matter that neither Jesus nor Paul were original, I can agree. Jesus' rabbinical teachings shows in parables and sayings he taught, but He seemed to have a greater grasp of spiritual matters than anyone else of His day, even confounded those Jewish teachers in the temple at age twelve.

And Paul employed rhetorical questions in the books of Romans in the same vein as in the Socratic dialogues.

All this lends to the idea that there is nothing new in truth. That truth has always been available, but there have been those who have been able to express truth with such effeciency and effect. Or perhaps there needs to one who can reveal truth to their generation and circumstances. Most every culture has some form of the Golden Rule and perhaps some unified theme or set of truths can be derived from this.

 

[RubySera_Martin]

"Warning, the following might be a bit off topic."

Hi InLove!



And orthodoxy agrees. The layering of scripture is not a liberal phenomena (which I didn't know as a fundamentalist).

I came across a post by Thomas yesterday that talked about the four ways to interpret a text:

Literal sense:
the literal meaning of the words, as understood according to the genre of the text. Here one should meditate upon what the words mean - in the parables, such as the treasure hidden in the field, what is the treasure, what is the field?

Allegorical sense:
what the text signifies with regard to objective reality, as opposed to the veils of manifestation and their subjective forms;

Moral or tropological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to how one should conduct oneself according to the nature of the revelation. Essentially in Christianity this sense signifies the practice of virtue towards detachment from the world of appearances and the forging of an immortal soul.

Anagogical or eschatological sense:
the meaning the text has in relation to the four 'last things', death and the various eschatalogical states.



You're welcome!

Kay, I took a course on the history of hermeneutics this spring and the four modes of interpretation listed here are but four. There are many other ways. Thomas is Roman Catholic and fairly traditional or orthdox is my take. This is important insofar as it influences what interpretative methods one considers legitimate.

Since in this thread we're talking about exactly what certain biblical passages mean this post does not seem off-topic to me.

Dondi, as to how much of Christianity I am keeping, well, I don't know. As you observed on another thread that I seem to know what I believe but don't know where it fits in. Given that at least one person on this forum has openly stated being a fundamentalist, and another has openly stated not being a Christian of any sort, posting on this forum in no way indicates that a person considers him or herself as a liberal Christian. I think you are responding more out of frustration that I "dismantled" your post than anything else. I asked you quite a number of genuine questions and you answered none of them. I really don't know why not.

Oops! I gotta go. Appointment.

Ruby

 

[Dondi]

Dondi, as to how much of Christianity I am keeping, well, I don't know. As you observed on another thread that I seem to know what I believe but don't know where it fits in. Given that at least one person on this forum has openly stated being a fundamentalist, and another has openly stated not being a Christian of any sort, posting on this forum in no way indicates that a person considers him or herself as a liberal Christian. I think you are responding more out of frustration that I "dismantled" your post than anything else. I asked you quite a number of genuine questions and you answered none of them. I really don't know why not.

I'm just trying to nail down where you are coming from. What you want from Christianity, that's all. On one hand, you have expressed distain over how you were treated by several churches you've been a part of. But on the other hand, at least from what I can gather, judging from your last post, it seems to me that your beef is not with those churches but more rather the biblical doctrines those churches espouse. It seems that everything orthodox is melting away from you. You don't see the literal interpretation of scripture, you don't believe the historical perspective of Christ as presented by the Gospels, even to the point that you doubt that Jesus was even a literal person, much less that He even rose from the dead. And now you even seem to doubt that there is any life after this at all, which puts the idea of a resurrection as a moot discussion for you, doesn't it?

All you pretty much have left from Christianity is the Golden Rule. And that can be found in most every other religion. Perhaps Christianity isn't for you.

But I will respond to you posts anyway:

You're taking all your evidence from the Bible. Even for secular court, one person's word is not accepted to establish truth. How much more when it comes to something as serious as one's eternal salvation should we seek evidence from more than one source.

The Bible is not just one person's word. You have the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, and James, in the NT. There is also talk of resurrection in OT passages like Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12. In addition, many of the extrabiblical books like the gnostic books mention the resurrection.

How many sources do you require? Where are you getting your "truth"?

Why is the resurrection seriously important? What evidence have we that there is anything beyond this life? One life is probably all we get. So let's learn to enjoy and appreciate this one life. You might find this (knowledge and belief) thread helpful in understanding another view.

Other than Jesus' resurrection witneesed by His disciples and Paul's testimony of seeing the "third heaven" and John's "Revelation"? There are documented near-death experiences. I suppose that's about the closest we can to knwing that there is a heaven.

But if you are going to ask what evidence is there that there is an after life, you might as well ask what evidence is there for God. You are absolutely right in that this life counts. For in Jesus' prayer in the Garden of Gethesmene he says, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." - John 17:3. If nothing else, life is in knowing God. And that starts here and now. So if I can know God now and see Him work in my life and experience the abundant life and joy that he has promised us we can have when we obey Him here, then I can have confidence that that life in God will transcend my death. And even if it doesn't, I will have at least enjoyed the life that He has bestowed upon me now. But there is still that element of hope coming from His Word, that eternity awaits us.

No, I don't think we ought to be overly preoccupied with the future afterlife. But it does serve as a motivating promise from God, so that I can begin living in His kingdom now.

Do you have to? Is it necessary to know exactly how this universe came into being? Not all religions concern themselves with this question. For some of today's Christians, however, it seems to be perhaps the most important question in life. Why? Do they think God can't defend himself?

I'm not out to defend Christianity by trying to prove to the world that God created the world. But I do think for myself it is important to believe that God created me. I rather like the idea that I was put here for a divine purpose, rather than a secular one.

You know, it's not really the responsibility of us humans to keep the universe in operation. Taking care of our own planet seems to be just a bit more than we can do

I don't exactly understand what you are saying here. I am not into Buddhist metaphysics. There are things I prefer to just accept on faith, things such as the operation of the universe by some force that I cannot name or understand or imagine.

I think you missed my point here. When I spoke of the universe not behaving as we thought, I merely meant that we keep discovering idiosyncrocies in physics that we've yet to explain. I am not even trying to prove what you call "Buddhist metaphysics". But you even said yourself that you take the operation of the universe by faith and it is in that same regard to faith that I draw parallels about God's role in it and the resurrection.