Debating the Resurrection

[_Z_]

thomas hi i mean none of this as an offence

Why not?

too many people if all were resurrected. when they have children but don’t die then have more and their children have some etc etc ~ you eventually end up with a very overpopulated planet. this is why earthly resurrection is illogical as i see it.

Why?

because 'righteousness itself is divisive' , and no people are truly evil [or at most very few].

Although bodily, we will be both immortal and incorruptible, and might discover that our material bodies are not bound by the physical world in quite the way they are now; that we have no authority over our physical being is because we are subject to temporality and corruption ... we are subject to the material at present, there is no need to assume we shall be under the same determination ... size, for one ...

our material bodies are our physical bodies ~ in this world anyway. this form you describe could not be of this [temporal] universe. as for size, when we are dealing with eternals it doesn’t make any difference, eventually given limited space we would occupy ever centimetre of it then end up standing on each others heads ect.

Reproduction, as we know it, might well be a post-Adamic consequence, and not a given.

a world without children ~ is that heaven. and god would get no new souls? ...and post adamic ~ what happened to [universal] evolution!

as one can assume we will have overcome concupiscence, sexual relations as we understand it might not even be on the agenda

so what will we do in this ‘heaven’, just stand around or something, or will we have some kind non touchy sex lols like wow that would be the most fun ever.

No, apathy is a post-Adamic condition — a negative state, so no apathy, no sloth, no gluttony

...and no comparativity! ignorance is bliss eh? this sounds like a mental catatonic state to me ~ or something very near. apathy is a feeling resultant of the given effect, it doesnt have legs [it isnt its own entity].

Look at it another way ... that which we call God is Infinite and inexhaustible

how about universal!?

so if you began a journey into God, there is no end, and no exhaustion ... just constant unfolding, constant joy at the discovery ... every moment new ...

yes, oh look another pretty buttercup.

But that would be only half the picture, wouldn’t it?

the human form is but a vessel and a tool, i am whole regardless.

That assumes God cannot create a perfect material realm

so he messed up this time? [with the present creation] personally i think it takes some kind of wisdom to create a world exactly as it is, its depth is just too profound to allow people to get past the apparent evel and limitedness of it all.

thanks

z

 

[Thomas]

Hi Z –

... when they have children but don’t die then have more and their children have some etc etc

I doubt they will have children.

because 'righteousness itself is divisive' , and no people are truly evil [or at most very few].

Justice isn't divisive. In my understanding, everyone will be included except those who don't want to.

our material bodies are our physical bodies ~ in this world anyway. this form you describe could not be of this [temporal] universe. as for size, when we are dealing with eternals it doesn’t make any difference, eventually given limited space we would occupy ever centimetre of it then end up standing on each others heads ect.

Again, I don't see why reproduction should figure. There is a clue when the Pharisees tried to catch Jesus out on a smart-alec question — If a woman has had two husbands, who is she married to in the afterlife? — His answer was, they're thinking about it the wrong way.

Christ resurrected a physical body, but walked through walls, appeared and disappeared ... I think we shall be able to determine the form our physical presence takes ...

a world without children ~ is that heaven. and god would get no new souls? ...and post adamic ~ what happened to [universal] evolution!

Universal evolution is no part of the Christian paradigm. And heaven will not be according to human sentimentality ... God has no need of souls, and there may well be an infinite number of creations ...

so what will we do in this ‘heaven’, just stand around or something, or will we have some kind non touchy sex lols like wow that would be the most fun ever.

There you go ... I doubt heaven will correspond in any way to the current culture's idea of 'a good time'! ... but if that's all a person chooses to be, then they exclude themselves from heaven, from life ... that's simple justice, nothing divisive about that.

...and no comparativity! ignorance is bliss eh? this sounds like a mental catatonic state to me ~ or something very near. apathy is a feeling resultant of the given effect, it doesnt have legs [it isnt its own entity].

What, no gain and loss? No envy? No jealousy? ... Do you suppose 'the seven deadly sins' will exist in paradise? Try considering an existence which finds its contentment in itself, in Union with its source, without the need for external reference, that need was what contributed to the Fall in the first place. Without the need to compare itself to another to see how well its doing ...

yes, oh look another pretty buttercup.

Precisely! Try and grasp the notion that complacency is a fault, or at least a mark of the finite (which has limits). Only man grows bored with miracles ... The trick is to look beyond one's own limitations.

the human form is but a vessel and a tool, i am whole regardless.

A vessel of what?

so he messed up this time? [with the present creation]

No, we did.

You seem to want to define the next world according to all the faults, failings and shortcomings that define this world for you ... I don't think that's the case.

The question then is can one conceive of 'a better place' and if yes, is one willing to make an effort in this life, or does one choose to look after numero uno, take what is offered and grab up what one can.

The justice of that then determines where we consign ourselves to ... those who make an effort get a reward, those who make no effort, no reward.

How is that divisive?

Or does one continue to insist that such is unfair?

I don't think God determines our fate, I think we do.

Thomas

 

[Dream]

Who are Madigan and Levenson? I thought everybody at least pondered resurrection as a possibility!

Z, you say there's not enough room for everyone on the planet, but your assumption is that I will be resurrected. If I'm not resurrected, then there's that much more empty space for someone else. The same could be said for anyone. What these 3 scholars from the first thread are implying is that Jews and Christians share a common idea of salvation for only part of the world's population.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Hi Cliff —
The point is, they were giants, and cos we can't attain even the 'old order', we cry 'sour grapes' and invent 'new orders' (or new denominations, indeed) tailored to our shortcomings ...

Thomas

Here I disagree. I think that having a blind adherence to an ancient text just because it is ancient borders on the superstitious, not to say idolatrous.

There are plenty of inspired and wise authors living today, capable of building up the light by drawing on the experience and wisdom accumulated over the centuries and from across cultures. We are capable of far more subtle thinking now than in the past. Questions which caused deep divisions before now seem trivial or irrelevant.

 

[_Z_]

thomas
thank you for your reply, sorry if i seamed somewhat vaccuous in my last replies.

I doubt they will have children.

would be a shame.

Justice isn’t divisive

it is. its the classic two edged sword. to make a clear decision you have to divide then cast one off against the other.
‘judge not for thou shall be judged thyself’.

Again, I don’t see why reproduction should figure. There is a clue when the Pharisees tried to catch Jesus out on a smart-alec question — If a woman has had two husbands, who is she married to in the afterlife? — His answer was, they’re thinking about it the wrong way.

i thought he meant that they should not have two wives to begin with.

Christ resurrected a physical body, but walked through walls, appeared and disappeared ... I think we shall be able to determine the form our physical presence takes ...

perhaps he was a ghost. if he was not physical he could do this, but physical bodies obey the laws of physics.

Universal evolution is no part of the Christian paradigm. And heaven will not be according to human sentimentality ... God has no need of souls, and there may well be an infinite number of creations ...

good point about infinite creations [infinite amount would be impossible but i take your point]. as for sentimentality, we are made in his image so what we like is what he likes to some degree [not in the same extreme] ~ are we not his children.

There you go ... I doubt heaven will correspond in any way to the current culture’s idea of ‘a good time’! ... but if that’s all a person chooses to be, then they exclude themselves from heaven, from life ... that’s simple justice, nothing divisive about that.

it is divisive, it excludes, which is dividing even if by choice. i see the point about ‘a good time’, i don’t think it is what people choose to be, we have sex to procreate [as well as for pleasure]. is it so bad ~ or is it bad when taken to extremes?

Do you suppose ‘the seven deadly sins’ will exist in paradise?

no i think they are an excess and people will be more balanced.

Try considering an existence which finds its contentment in itself, in Union with its source, without the need for external reference

i can see that, though it depends upon what we see as the source. without comparisons we wouldn’t know what good is ~ or what virtually anything is. to arrive at that state we would have to be innocent of virtually everything we know, so would our memory would be erased? if so then how do we define what and who we are or what anything is, we would be a blank state.

Precisely! Try and grasp the notion that complacency is a fault, or at least a mark of the finite (which has limits). Only man grows bored with miracles ... The trick is to look beyond one’s own limitations.

point grasped , although i didn’t mean it like that. we would become indifferent to it all [to the in-different]. sure i can look beyond earthly limitations, that is precisely why i believe in spiritual reincarnation in a spiritual eternity ~ a paradise that firstly is a mirror of the earth [but not physical in the same way].

all these things point to something other than immortality upon planet earth!

A vessel of what?

‘me’, the mind and mind-body [spirit and soul], the same thing that is the universal essence of all things.

No, we did.

No, we did not, we didn’t create the universe and are probably not even the only beings in it, and Adam and eve is a metaphor, we evolved!

You seem to want to define the next world according to all the faults, failings and shortcomings that define this world for you ... I don’t think that’s the case.

no i don’t i think we act according to our environment to a large degree, the things we do are usually necessary or a reaction to real events. i like to think of this life as like a school for eternity, where we wont have the same demands made of us and will be wiser and more balanced having lived a few incarnations on earth. most faults and failings arent faults and failings.

The justice of that then determines where we consign ourselves to ... those who make an effort get a reward, those who make no effort, no reward.

ignorance then is damned?

How is that divisive?
Or does one continue to insist that such is unfair?
I don’t think God determines our fate, I think we do.

it is divisive because it judges on ignorance of truth [if true], it judges one kind of effort against another and says that we are judged upon making our own choices even when we are faced with a lack of evidence. we determine our fate? it is more a balance between the individual and the environment, and we are born ignorant thence only knowing the given environment. you could argue the case if it were all present and we could make a choice, but you are saying that we are to be judged when one half of the equasion is not apparent or possibly does not exist.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Z —

This is all speculation ... just so we're clear ... but assuming the thread refers to the JudeoChristian Tradition, then I am coming from the Christian doctrine of Resurrection.

would be a shame.

The urge to have children, apart from self-gratification and the equivalent of a dog peeing on lamp-posts, is to do with continuity and the will to live ... if the being is immortal/eternal, that would suggest the urge is eliminated, so I'm suggesting 'shame' is if we view it from a finite/contingent viewpoint?

it is. its the classic two edged sword. to make a clear decision you have to divide then cast one off against the other.
‘judge not for thou shall be judged thyself’.

We are not to judge ... that is Christ's prerogative. But there will be a judgement. To say otherwise is to say Creation is void of purpose or meaning ... and Scripture — of any religion or spiritual tradition — is a complete waste of time ...

perhaps he was a ghost. if he was not physical he could do this, but physical bodies obey the laws of physics.

Nope, the Resurrection was physical. He can transcend the laws of physics — they exist through Him, not the other way round.

as for sentimentality, we are made in his image so what we like is what he likes to some degree [not in the same extreme] ~ are we not his children.

Actually no, we become such through filiation. We are shaped by the finite and the contingent, which He is not, that which is the product of finitude and contingency applies to us, not to God. God is subject to no limitation, so there is no cause of sentimentality in the Deity. He is the Unmoved Mover. He is not moved.

it is divisive, it excludes, which is dividing even if by choice.

Then what's the alternative?

i can see that, though it depends upon what we see as the source.

Well in this context the source is JudeoChristian doctrine. If you discount that, then it's a meaningless discussion. Resurrection with a Cap 'R' implies the Christian doctrine.

without comparisons we wouldn’t know what good is

There's a difference between knowing and doing. We do not have to do what is wrong to know it is wrong, nor not know what is right.

that is precisely why i believe in spiritual reincarnation in a spiritual eternity ~ a paradise that firstly is a mirror of the earth [but not physical in the same way].

OK. But that is not what the Christian message is, so you're into your own conjecture here.

‘me’, the mind and mind-body [spirit and soul], the same thing that is the universal essence of all things.

Again, this is your conjecture, not what the books are saying. In Christian terms, the physical is not a disposable or an inconsequential order of being.

If God is Absolute, then He can realize Himself in the finite ... if He can't, then He's not God.

No, we did not, we didn’t create the universe and are probably not even the only beings in it, and Adam and eve is a metaphor, we evolved!

Well again, we're at crossed purposes. You're arguing a Christian doctrine from a non-Christian viewpoint.

From the Christian perspective, God created the world, and we introduced sin ... evolution is secondary and subsequent to all that. Physical offers a 'how', metaphysics offer a 'why'.

... i like to think of this life as like a school for eternity, where we wont have the same demands made of us and will be wiser and more balanced having lived a few incarnations on earth. most faults and failings arent faults and failings.

Again, not Christian, so doesn't apply in the case the authors are making.

ignorance then is damned?

No. Wilful ignorance, yes.

but you are saying that we are to be judged when one half of the equasion is not apparent or possibly does not exist.

According to your opinion.

Thomas

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

It does seem Thomas that your arguments are reflexive. We will have a body, but only one which is nothing like a body. We will have life but not life as we know it. Christ had a physical resurrection, but only if you redefine the word physical.

Most people with a simple faith have always thought of the hereafter as a sort of long holiday with their loved ones. You yourself have said that this is not so. This fact alone, if announced officially, would be enough to empty the pews. Most people, like you (by your own admission), only follow to get their reward. This is not what I call faith. This is looking after number one.

Isn't it time to justify our faith not by promises of pie in the sky but by the knowledge of God in the here and now?

 

[Thomas]

It does seem Thomas that your arguments are reflexive.

No. My arguments are founded on reasoned faith.

We will have a body, but only one which is nothing like a body.

Again I have said nothing along these lines. I believe in the Resurrection of the flesh, but that flesh will be immortal and incorruptible ... so I do not assume that everything that conditions us now will condition us then.

We will have life but not life as we know it.

I think that is fair to say. No-one in the Christian Tradition has ever defined precisely what that life will be like ... nor have those who have savoured it ever managed to adequately convey its sweetness ...

... as St Thomas Aquinas said in the wake of his own vision of his Saviour, "Everything I have written is like straw before the wind... "

Christ had a physical resurrection, but only if you redefine the word physical.

Again, no. Christ had a physical resurrection, but, nevertheless, He appeared and disappeared, walls did not impede Him. Most significantly, He was not recognised by those who knew Him, until He revealed Himself (with none telling exception).

He transcends the physical, in the same way that He did so when he walked upon the water ... He is not subject to the physical, it aches to serve Him, for therein lies its own truth and reality ...

What follows are some thoughts from the French theologian, Jean Borella:

If there is, in fact, a resurrection of the flesh, this is because the divine principle, which is immanent to the world in the very substance of matter, cannot but, by virtue of Its own Transcendence, tear the physical body out of the cosmic order to which it clings to manifest the very transcendence of the flesh when it has been truly indwelt by the Spirit...

The Spirit dwells in the world, but the world is less real and less perfect than the Spirit. At the very least there is a degree of the world — precisely the one which we are experiencing — whose imperfection crushes us and leads to death.

It is in fact through the body that we are present in a world of bodies. However, this presence, of which we believe ourselves to be the masters since it is somehow identified with us, is in reality a passive and involuntary presence ... it can do nothing but offer itself to our gaze, it can do nothing but be seen. To be seen, and to be corporeally present, is all one. My corporeal presence is my visibility, but my visibility is not my own; it belongs to every gaze, unbeknownst to me and without being able to do anything about it — an ignorance and impotence constituting the every essence of my visibility.

Thus, no one is master of his corporeal presence, and, even more, to be corporeally present is not to be master of this presence.

What happens then, to the contrary, in the Resurrection of Christ? What happens is that the resurrected Body is as if a witness, a living proof, a saving irruption of the glorious nature of the created within the bosom of its dark and opaque modality: Christ's body is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but, by a total change, it is no longer of the essence of this presence to be passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will. Christ can actualize the corporeal mode of His presence according to His own decision and as He judges good. The relationship that He entertains with the corporeal medium of His presence has been completely transformed. A presence active throughout the entire world because a presence really in act, all relationships which unite this corporeal medium with the rest of the bodies, that is to say with the entire world and with the conditions that define it, all these relationships have been changed.

Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen. This is exactly what the Gospels teach, and which so many modern exegetes are incapable of understanding.

Christ glorious is not 'above' the world of the senses, except in a symbolic sense. Simply put, He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality (whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence), a presentification which the spiritual person may or may not effectuate, as freely as human thought can, in its ordinary state, produce or not produce such or such a concept or sentiment. Whoever stops to consider this doctrine of the reversal in the relationship of the person to his corporeal medium and the consequences that this entails, will take into account the remarkable light that it casts on the significance of Christ's post-pascal appearances according to the Gospels.

Most people with a simple faith have always thought of the hereafter as a sort of long holiday with their loved ones. You yourself have said that this is not so.

Again no ... I have not refuted anything but contingent and relative subjectivity ... I would think the afterlife is a long holiday with God and my loved ones ... and hopefully even an Irish Wolfhound or two ... I do agree with the author, however, that the idea of the afterlife for the American Christian denominations seems to accord with 'the American Dream' and should be challenged ...

This fact alone, if announced officially, would be enough to empty the pews.

D'you think so? I think most people in the pews have a stronger relationship with Christ than you suppose. Or at least in the hope of rest and peace. I don't think people are as shallow as you assume.

That they have no answer beyond vague imaginings which you would find insufficient says something in itself about their faith. If that was indeed what they were there for, they'd have a better idea, but it isn't (in my experience) so they don't. Nor is it an issue. Their faith is very much the faith of here and now, and the hope of a future to come.

What I have refuted the idea that the causes of sin and suffering in this world will not be present in the next — or rather will not be binding upon us and conditional on our natures.

But I also hold that those 'awake' in the next suffer for the suffering in this world ... if the angels can rejoice, they can weep.

Most people, like you (by your own admission), only follow to get their reward.

If you know anything about Christianity, and about me, you would know that is not so. I have stated on more than one occasion that Christianity is not an insurance policy, nor do I treat it as such.

Isn't it time to justify our faith not by promises of pie in the sky but by the knowledge of God in the here and now?

We were debating the Resurrection. It might be pie in the sky to you, but there are those who labour for it's sake, in this life, in the here and now, who have tasted it ...

If you want to debate the Beatific Vision in this life, that's fine by me ... but my mind is formed according to the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew Ch5-7. And my references are the saints and mystics, who seem by their lives to attest to the Doctrine I follow in an exemplary manner.

They seem to be the proof of the pudding.

Thomas

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

To translate your quote into more accessible language, then, you are saying that Christ's resurrected body included a sort of personal Tardis*. Well, that finesses its way round the contradictions at least.

Personally I don't find the idea of my body being sucked into the universe by an unstoppable transcendence appealing.

Garrison Keiller describes how one (fictional) Lutheran sect severed from another on the issue of whether we would recognise our loved ones in heaven. Go to any funeral service and you will hear belief expressed in these concrete terms. Even in Acts we read how let down the Christians felt when they started dying and there was still no second coming. Christianity has been sold through the ages on the promise of an indefinite life extension.

I have read many of your posts Thomas and in fact I see you are a wonderfully wise, gentle and spiritual person. In fact reading your contributions persuaded me to join the forum in the first place. I just think you are in a small minority.

You can't promise people a reward and then expect them not to be motivated by it. This undermines the foundations of their faith, which should be built on love, not self-interest. Christ offered nothing but a hard road. Maybe that was not enough to win people over, so a sweetener was added to the doctrine. Is this not so?

(*Tardis for those unfamiliar with Dr Who: a sort of time and space travel machine)

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

The Pali Canon? (in regards to changes in the canon)...

s.

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

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

Thank you for expounding the traditional view for us!

Traditionally the Resurrection signifies a corporate and communal event, not an individualistic one ... and Christian doctrine is corporate and communal, not individualistic ... which is why the ekklesia is central to the doctrine — without it the Mystical body exists only in a abstract and speculative sense — it is a physical representation of the Mystical Body in the created order, it represents a reality in a way no individual can accomplish.

I don't disagree, but resurrection is often viewed from a singular and personal perspective. Afterall, that is the level which holds any meaning that we can directly relate to.

There are other considerations too, interpretational issues, such as the thief who repented on the cross beside Jesus, to whom was promised "today you will be with me in paradise." This to me resonates on an individual level, not a corporate one. This is not to say you are incorrect, for surely the promise of Isaiah does according to at least one interpretation allow for a corporate resurrection. I sense both are accurate.

*the church should teach what the first Christians believed.*

This is what the Roman Church and the Orthodox Patriachates teach, so if you wanna know the real deal, you know where to look ...

Indeed, I do. Judaism. Afterall, what books did Jesus learn and teach from?

Easy. Go back to the source, and then look at the motivation behind later denominations diverging from the path.

Ah, what truth your words contain! Look at how politics changed the radical Judaism which comprised early Christianity! A mere look at the history of Rome of the first few centuries of the Common Era shed a great deal of light in this regard.

The point is, they were giants, and cos we can't attain even the 'old order', we cry 'sour grapes' and invent 'new orders' (or new denominations, indeed) tailored to our shortcomings ...

As the says, many of the modern versions of Christianity teach according to their own agenda, which bears scant relation to what was originally taught.

True. Catholism is not immune to this either, indeed, has been the teacher to others of how to "modify" its presence to suit the locals at the street level. Two extreme examples leap readily to mind: Haitian Catholism interlaced inextricably with Voodun, and the amalgam in the American Southwest among the Hispanic Mexican population which includes the veneration of the Virgin of Guadelupe. Other examples are easy enough to find.

There's a difference between the secular and the sacred sciences, isn't there ...

Indeed there is. Let us not confuse politics with metaphysics though, if we are to be most honest with ourselves.

Christianity is founded in the Eternal Truth of the Absolute, and manifest in and made known through a metaphysic of the person ... and provides the means by which one might transcend self ... your 'truth' is founded on the empirical and the contingent, and as such is locked in upon itself as its own paradigm ... until nature comes knocking on the door ...

Agreed. However, am I to presume an institution holds these eternal and absolute truths simply because it says so? What distinction can I as an interested observer make between this as a claim of Catholism versus this same claim from...oh, let's say...Theosophy? Actually, what is it that distinguishes any other faith walk that might make the same claim? That Catholism *actually is* the real deal and all others are fakes?

Can you begin to see why such claims can be viewed as suspect?

The biggest mistake we make is in assuming we are somehow better than our forebears ... we might have learnt to hide our faeces and dazzle ourselves with the glamour of our technologies ... but we're deeper in the doo-dooh now than we've ever been.

I'm not certain it is the biggest mistake we collectively make, but I agree it is a big mistake. We do tend to get rather swelled noggins with the more secular knowledge we gain. I suspect we all from time to time forget to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and that science and religion are really apples and oranges.

Still, what are we to do when we are told "such and such" is true? What then is truth, if it is not actually true? Granted, science is not necessarily truth any more than some religious explanations can be...we must make some rational sense of our world somehow. How are we to reconcile *the four corners of the earth* when we know at all levels that the earth is round? Simply (and blindly) accept without question? Because our institution tells us we must?

Certainly the Bible was written to an earlier mind, and is not intended as a science text. I accept that. I accept that the truths contained are figurative and symbolic, and may or may not translate directly into modern reason. That does not diminish the value of the Sacred text. It does diminish the value of the institution that continues to exert political authority as it tries in vain to maintain a tenuous position that is quite evidently not the truth of reality, history or experience.

I'm honestly not sure whether this planet will sustain my children, now in their 20s, into their old age we have led them to expect, and which we assumed as a right. (By which I mean the affluent West, of course — the 'third world' as we call it has been footing the bill for our creature comforts for a number of years now ... )

These are valid concerns we all face. I lost a great deal of my early adult life consumed in worry over this very thing. I sincerely thought the end of this era would have come about by now. I am not certain where I first got the idea in my head, but I know that my reading of the Bible only fuelled the fire of worrying about the end. I have been watching diligently, but I have also grown a bit more relaxed with age in my diligence, perhaps to my detriment. Living in a contant state of worry is no way to live either. I see how things are unfolding, there are prophecies in various states of fulfillment. Perhaps it may yet happen in my lifetime.

Then again, maybe not. All those plans I made as a young man have come essentially to nought, instead I forgot to live my life and cherish what time I have been given. I've shifted my focus a bit now. I don't worry so much anymore. I am more grateful for what G-d has provided in all respects, including time. My physical health has deteriorated to the point that the *rabbit run* I so carefully planned is no longer an option. Now I trust in faith that I will guard myself and mine as well as I can, and trust to the Father to provide His protection when the time comes.

Some questions truly aren't worth the stress in worrying over the semantics and interpretations. Is resurrection physical, spiritual or both? I don't know. To me, it is a non-issue, so long as I am there when it occurs, and I get to stand with the "good and faithful servants." That is where my focus is. The rest is just mental exercise to help keep my brain alive.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

The biggest mistake we make is in assuming we are somehow better than our forebears ... we might have learnt to hide our faeces and dazzle ourselves with the glamour of our technologies ... but we're deeper in the doo-dooh now than we've ever been.

Ah! An essential point of difference. I suppose the fact that I utterly reject this is what makes me a progressive.

I'm not sure I understand what the debate over the resurrection is about. It would seem that issues of corporeality versus some sort of enhanced corporeality are mostly part of the minutiae of the mystery and not much subject to debate of any rigor within Christianity proper. That's my observation, anyhow. If the Tomb was empty, and Thomas was later able to touch the crucifixion wounds, doesn't that imply some sort of physicality to the process? I mean, staying within the story, of course.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not sure I understand what the debate over the resurrection is about.

That would be my boo boo. Debating the Resurrection was the title of the article. I meant to include that in the name of the thread but I forgot. Silly me, I'm still not perfect.

It would seem that issues of corporeality versus some sort of enhanced corporeality are mostly part of the minutiae of the mystery and not much subject to debate of any rigor within Christianity proper. That's my observation, anyhow. If the Tomb was empty, and Thomas was later able to touch the crucifixion wounds, doesn't that imply some sort of physicality to the process? I mean, staying within the story, of course.

The whole "mystery" bit just doesn't sit well in my craw. Why does G-d hafta hide anything? Why would G-d hide anything?

Something tells me that the whole "mystery" shebang is a lame excuse to not have to be accountable to the really tough questions. Ask a tough question, and the answer is always "Oh, that's a mystery. Take it on faith that it is the way it is," effectively because we said so.

If G-d is real (which is to me a rhetorical question), then He can handle being questioned. I even dare to believe He likes to answer our questions...if they are asked properly and sincerely.

But what do I know?

 

[Thomas]

To translate your quote into more accessible language, then, you are saying that Christ's resurrected body included a sort of personal Tardis*. Well, that finesses its way round the contradictions at least.

My post was an excerpt for contemplation ... it points to many interesting points, and addresses the issues raised by the Scriptural account of the Resurrection.

Personally I don't find the idea of my body being sucked into the universe by an unstoppable transcendence appealing.

If you're not a Christian, I can see how the technical language employed might be somewhat offputting. If you want more paranetic texts, there are plenty to choose from — John's testimony of the Last Supper ... and St Paul is brilliant at it ... I didn't think an homiletic style would be appreciated here at CR.

But if people want to debate the Resurrection of Christ, at least bother to re-read the source material ... my posts are metaphysical speculations, not homilies nor are they proselytising ... that is not what CR is about.

This undermines the foundations of their faith, which should be built on love, not self-interest.

Nowhere do I suggest self-interest. It's love or nothing ... and unconditional love or nothing ... His words, not mine.

Christ offered nothing but a hard road.

But He also offered the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Comforter, and that is a reality, and that makes the hard road not only bearable, but infinitely more rewarding than anything the world has to offer.

Maybe that was not enough to win people over, so a sweetener was added to the doctrine. Is this not so?

Why not ask yourself what you expect my answer to be.

And please refrain from such offensive comments with regard Christianity and the faith of Christians. You might find such things contemptible, I stand in awe of both.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Just noticed this:

Resurrection is reality, Pope assures audience

Vatican, Mar. 26, 2008
The Easter Octave draws attention to "the central truth of Christian faith in all its doctrinal richness"

The Resurrection of Jesus brings to believers "the certainty of our final resurrection," the Holy Father said. He pointedly remarked that the historical truth of the Resurrection "is amply documented, even if today, as in the past, there is no lack of people who put it in doubt or even deny it." In fact, the Pontiff continued, "the weakening of faith in the Resurrection of Jesus leads to the weakening of the testimony of believers."

The liturgy of the Easter season underlines the Church's full confidence in the reality of the Resurrection, the Pope said, encouraging Catholics to participate actively in the liturgical celebrations. Just as the disciples recognized Christ on the road to Emmaus, the Pope said that the faithful "can meet and know Jesus Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist."

It may be of interest to know that the traditional exegesis of the Emmaus meeting (Luke 24:13_53) has two disciples, one named Cleophas, the other is anonymous, and is you ... in turn the risen Christ is unrecognised by those who know Him, until they partook of the Eucharist, at which point their eyes were opened ... a Mystery ... yesterday, today, and tomorrow...

If one finds the Mysteries of the Christian Faith difficult, an abstraction ... then please understand that, for the faithful Christian who engages in a real way with The Lord, then there is a knowing more profound than any explanation might put into words ...

Thomas

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

My post was an excerpt for contemplation ... it points to many interesting points, and addresses the issues raised by the Scriptural account of the Resurrection.

The article said that Christ could materialise and dematerialise at will. In this respect he was Tardis-like. That is what it said.

I didn't think an homiletic style would be appreciated here at CR.

I think the problem comes when style overtakes substance.

Nowhere do I suggest self-interest. It's love or nothing ... and unconditional love or nothing ... His words, not mine.

Yes I agree. But you haven't answered my central point. You can't act selflessly and be rewarded too. It's impossible.

But He also offered the presence of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Comforter, and that is a reality, and that makes the hard road not only bearable, but infinitely more rewarding than anything the world has to offer.

That I can agree with 200 per cent.

Why not ask yourself what you expect my answer to be.

I thought you might be interested in explainig the discrepanct between Christ's teaching and this doctrine, that's all.

And please refrain from such offensive comments with regard Christianity and the faith of Christians. You might find such things contemptible, I stand in awe of both.
Thomas

Where is the offence? I went out of my way to pay you a heartfelt compliment and you accuse me of offending you? Sometimes you just can't win.

Finally then, brother, tell me this: what happened to Christ's physical body at the ascension?

With respect,
Cliff

 

[Thomas]

The article said that Christ could materialise and dematerialise at will. In this respect he was Tardis-like. That is what it said.

OK. If you think the authors of Scripture had the Tardis in mind. I think they might be a bit more far-sighted than that ...

To my mind the Borella introduces a profoundly metaphysical insight that is entirely consonant with Scripture, but it's not for everyone.

I have said nothing that is not entirely in accord with Scripture, although I have been careful to say these are my own speculations. If they are too testing, I shall keep them to myself in future.

Finally then, brother, tell me this: what happened to Christ's physical body at the ascension?

Luke 24:31:
"And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he vanished out of their sight."
St John is quite clear that the Word became flesh so that men might understand; once their 'eyes were opened' they 'saw' Him under no limitation, so He 'ascended' materially, metaphysically and ontologically, to the Father.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

It may come a some surprise to know that the Resurrection has never been defined as a Dogma of Faith in the Catholic Church, for the simple reason that it has never been deemed to be necessary — it's what every true Christian believes — and without it, Christ means nothing:

"But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:13–14).

Thomas

 

[_Z_]

is this debating the resurrection? ~ or are we just here to listen to some vague ideas, then when we show fault or disagree we are told it is christian theology. it seams [as usual i am afraid to say] that we are simply to be told the truth and not debate it.

this thread should be in the christian section not out here asking for general debate imho.

sorry but that is how it comes across, there are areas that may be debated but it seams thay are only allowed to be looked at in one way.

its a shame christianity can show us so much, but not i feel like this.

 

[arthra]

Well I wonder whether "debating" the resurrection is really what I'd like to do here..

My modem went out several days ago and only recently have I been able to restore my service therwise I probably would have poisted earlier.

But I thought I'd maybe state my own beliefs on the resurrection as a Baha'i.

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..

"The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12).

so in this sense we would say the Cause of Christ was eclipsed for a few days and then reborn or resurrected in the hearts of His followers. See the following from Abdul-Baha on the meaning of the Resurrection:

"His (Jesus') resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical... ...Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection
is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. ...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ...the Reality of Christ became resplendent ...; His religion found life... ...Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols..."


I personally accept that Jesus followers may well have had visionary experiences where they really experienced the presence of Jesus after His crucifixion just as they did for instance on the Mount of Transfiguration when Jesus was alive. See

Jesus was transfigured upon a mountain (Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36).

but these were spiritual experiences they had and not that the body of Jesus was physically resurrected. These visionary experiences would have been very real to them I believe.

Anyway that about sums up what I believe on the subject.

- Art