darby Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 But isn't a LITERAL resurrection foundational to Christianity (whatever brand you adhere to) ? Above all other miracles we might debate about? If Christ is not raised from the dead, then as Paul said, "our preaching is in vain." Satan and death are not conquered. Christ is not risen, sitting at the right hand of the Father. All of the Peter and Paul's teachings, as well as most of the rest of the NT is a lie, is it not? If He is not resurrected, literally, then I certainly have no hope of being resurrected. And His promise to go and prepare a place for me can't be true as well. To me, the Bible literally falls apart, or I have to discard huge parts of it, is Christ is not raised, literally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Darby - I don't think it is.... let me try to explain.... Whether or not Jesus was bodily raised from the dead... He calls me to radical compassion... NOW. My primary concern is not with my personal "salvation" nor with my personal afterlife. It is with being close to God/in sync with God/on God's side/the body of Christ now. If you look at resurrection metaphorically, I see lots of "dead" people walking around... by accepting/acknowledging/getting close to God/Jesus, I feel that I am awake or, perhaps, resurrected. As for a literal afterlife and salvation...that's another thread.... I'm not sure what I think/believe there.... either way, lots to do now. Does that make any sense to you? Anybody? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 But isn't a LITERAL resurrection foundational to Christianity (whatever brand you adhere to) ? You must have known you'd get a throng of "no" responses for this. But it's a fair question. What I hear you saying is: "All your metaphorical versions of the resurrection are nice, but at the end of the day, what's really REAL is whether Jesus actually came back to life, came out of the empty tomb, talked and ate with his disciples, and returned to the right hand of God. It just sounds like a bunch of excuses for not believing what God said and did. The resurrection IS fantastic, and I believe it happened just the way the Bible says." Does that sum it up? Part of the problem, as I've said before, is that non-literal approaches to the resurrection DO frequently end up sounding at best like watered-down excuses, and at worst like it doesn't even matter at all. I don't mean to pick on you Cynthia, but I'm going to read your post like I imagine a more argumentative version of Darby might do. You said, "Whether or not Jesus was bodily raised from the dead... He calls me to radical compassion..." This statement maneuvers around the resurrection, and sounds like the concept doesn't really matter. All that matters is compassion? "Awake, or perhaps, resurrected"? That's all resurrection is: accepting, acknowledging, and getting close to God? That just doesn't sound like enough. Let me put it this way. What's more real: Eternal Life overcoming eternal death, or the resuscitation of a human body? Of course the reality of Eternal Life-from-death, expressed in biological terms, is going to sound bizarre and fantastic, but only such a story could possibly reveal the truth. Don't confuse the more fantastic with the more real. Eternal Life is so real, that the empty tomb sounds like a bedtime story by comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Brian McLaren, in the first chapter of Generous Orthodoxy, makes the point that different Christian groups focus on Jesus in very different ways. Each of these groups believe that Jesus saves, but they might disagree as to HOW Jesus saves. The point of his chapter (I think) is that ALL of these views have a place and perhaps they can be a part of a "balanced" Christianity. Conservative Protestants - The Crucifixion - Jesus was born to die to absorb the penalty of all human wrongdoing. Jesus death was a sacrifice, perhaps forshadowed by the animal sacrifices required by God during the Temple periods. Roman Catholicism - The Resurrection - By entering life's worst (suffering and death) and breaking through it, Jesus changes forever the whol equation of existence. Death does not have the last word. Jesus LIVES! Eastern Orthodoxy - The Incarnation - The early chuch leaders used the term "perichoresis" (peri - circle, choresis - dance) to describe the Trinity. The Trinity is an eternal dance of Father, Son and Spirit sharing love and joy. Against this backdrop, God's act of creation means God is inviting more and more beings into the eternal dance of joy. The Eastern Orthodox Jesus saves by simply being born, by coming among us, and by inviting us into the dance. Liberal Protestants - The Life - The Gospel centers in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ. His teachings and acts of love, healing, justice and compassion offer a way of life that, if practiced, bring blessings to the whole world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 I can't find anything I disagree with in the "liberal" view...except that it is incomplete. Jesus' teachings did not begin and end with lessons on compassion, service, etc. He talked about his death/resurrection. What do we do with that? Peter spent as much time with Jesus as anyone...saw his healing, service, foot washing, compassion, etc. He, more than anyone, knew Jesus' heart for the poor, downtrodden, etc. But when he is boldly preaching in the beginning of Acts, he is not preaching about compassion, etc. (although he certainly believe it). He's preaching about a risen Jesus. In chapter 2, verse 32, he says, "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses." Fred, you came pretty close to voicing my opinion. It's not, nor ever has been, compassion, love, service, etc. OR crucifixtion, resurrection, etc., but BOTH. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 He talked about his death/resurrection. What do we do with that? I think these parts of Jesus life need to be affirmed as well. I, personally, can't find meaning in Christianity if it means just following Jesus as a role model, even if he is the PERFECT role model. I've tried. Does that mean that I make myself believe in the Divinity of Jesus as well as the resurrection IN ORDER to stay Christian? Not at all. I have reasons for my belief that perhaps won't mean anything to anyone else but me. I'm not alone however. I've talked to many liberal Christians who believe in the Incarnation and in the death and resurrection. Perhaps such beliefs are more in tune with moderate, mainline Christianity? I'm a work in progress (progressive, get it? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 I'm not alone however. I've talked to many liberal Christians who believe in the Incarnation and in the death and resurrection. Perhaps such beliefs are more in tune with moderate, mainline Christianity? I've always hated the term "moderate"... it just sounds like I've arrived at some sort of warm compromise. I prefer to hold all my extreme views in tension with one another and see what ferments. I've even thought of labelling my ideas as "Progressive Orthodoxy"! "Radical Orthodoxy" was already taken, and besides, I have a lot of issues with it (even though I really like a lot of it too). Anyway, yes -- the Jesus-as-role-model variety of Christianity just doesn't compel me at all. And I don't think I'm playing clever word games when I say that I believe passionately and wholeheartedly in the Incarnation and Resurrection. They are the fundamental lens through which I view the entire world and everything in it. I can't put it any less strongly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 You heard (read?) me right Fred... I don't think it matters. The concept matters but the historical "truth" doesn't - to me. I think people waste a lot of time, energy and effort arguing about things that cannot be resolved and that, really, don't matter. Is Jesus alive to me - yes. Can I prove it? No. But I Know. People who know me can judge on fruit if they so choose. Trying to make rules to prove acceptance of God, to objectively and externally prove an internal change is, IMO, where all the problems with religion started. To me, the 8 points and progressive christianity mean that I can respect and value your beliefs without you having to prove their value to me. I don't think that Jesus was just a good role model. Anyway, hope that clarifies... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 (edited) I don't much care for moderate either. Actually, I don't like the terms liberal, moderate or conservative. I wouldn't mind them except people don't seem to be able to get past the pre-conceptions such labels bring to mind. (I'm not referring to this board, btw, but to beliefnet.) I prefer to hold all my extreme views in tension with one another and see what ferments. Oh no! Now you've done it. I will forever-more think of myself as a yeasty, fermented Christian. (No cracks about leaven please!) Edited May 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 You heard (read?) me right Fred... I don't think it matters. The concept matters but the historical "truth" doesn't - to me. I think people waste a lot of time, energy and effort arguing about things that cannot be resolved and that, really, don't matter. I understand what you're saying; I was merely trying to stand in a pair of conservative shoes and read your comments. I agree that the concept is what matters. Actually, I'd say that "historical truth" is somewhat of a misnomer. The concept is what is true, and worth arguing about. Hope I haven't offended... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Oh no! Now you've done it. I will forever-more think of myself as a yeasty, fermented Christian. (No cracks about leaven please!) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I proudly identify myself with beer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 no offense taken -- just grumpy today Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Cynthia, I'm the one that used the term role model to express my difficulty in finding meaning in a path that has that as its center. I didn't mean to imply that is what YOU do. I'm sorry that my words came out that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 have you seen the t-shirt: Beer is God's way of letting us know that He loves us and wants us to be happy??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 have you seen the t-shirt: Beer is God's way of letting us know that He loves us and wants us to be happy??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is a quote from the great Ben Franklin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Thanks for the laugh Aletheia!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 You heard (read?) me right Fred... I don't think it matters. The concept matters but the historical "truth" doesn't - to me. I think people waste a lot of time, energy and effort arguing about things that cannot be resolved and that, really, don't matter. Is Jesus alive to me - yes. Can I prove it? No. But I Know. People who know me can judge on fruit if they so choose. But it's the historical truth that shapes the concept. If Jesus really did just die and that was it, it seems like all we can do is determine some subjective meaning for words like "resurrection", and is it even worth it since this guy talked about coming back from the dead but didn't. If, on the other hand, he really did physically rise, as the disciples taught, then many things follow: he validated his claims to divinity, he really did know what he was talking about, etc..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 The resurrection itself is described very differently in the gospels and in Acts and Paul. How do you explain these apparent contradictions? I explain it as a real event, but not necessarily a literal one. Real as in that effecting those who surrounded Jesus in some extremely powerful, real, and transcendent way. However, not literally as each described it, as each described different physical events. There was a stone, no stone described, there were 3 women, there was one, how many angels, or no angels, etc. etc. --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Agreed des. I honestly don't understand how people can take the bible literally. (I don't mean this harshly... it truely leaves me bewildered) There are so many contradictions that even a cursory study would (and did) leave me with an assurance that it could not be true. Metaphor allows the truth to shine through in a way that is much more meaningful IMO throughout the ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 (edited) "The Bible is the cradle that holds Christ. That "cradle" includes written collections of earlier oral folktales of prehistory; court documents; poetry; polemics; allegory; crafted historical narrative; pastoral letter. Parts of the Bible are indeed historically factual; other parts are folkloric, or metaphorical. (Scholars use the same techniques to ascertain which are which that they would use to study any other ancient documents.) Truth is not synonymous with factuality. The Book of Jonah, for instance, is a beautiful little story of God's grace and inclusivity that speaks a truth about God whether one reads it as a series of historical events or as a parable." I posted this in Des' Bible thread. I came across it on the Traditional Christianity board over at bnet. There are many that don't believe the Bible is word for word literally and inerrantly true, but they do believe that the "gist" is there. This "gist" includes the belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead. I was suprised to find out this is the position of many Christians, including quite conservative ones, and that the literalist interpretation isn't the most popular or common. (I'm bummed! Where did Homer go? ) Edited May 6, 2005 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 I was suprised to find out this is the position of many Christians, including quite conservative ones, and that the literalist interpretation [inerrancy, aka "Verbal Plenary Inspiration Theory"] isn't the most popular or common. Nope. The Catholic Church, for example, has never taught inerrancy, but infallibility: i.e. it perfectly illumines the issues of doctrine and morality that it addresses. Most here will probably not agree with that characterization either, but it's very different from verbal inerrancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cunninglily Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Agreed des. I honestly don't understand how people can take the bible literally. (I don't mean this harshly... it truely leaves me bewildered) There are so many contradictions that even a cursory study would (and did) leave me with an assurance that it could not be true. Metaphor allows the truth to shine through in a way that is much more meaningful IMO throughout the ages. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think its important to at least consider that the scriptures contain levels of meaning and truth that are discerned according to the degree that our minds are "renewed". Paul wrote that the "carnal mind cannot perceive the things of God". We are in the habit of thinking that Paul is refering to unbelievers in this statement, but he is not, he is writing to the churches when he says this, and he seems to be saying that "babes in Christ" are yet carnal minded. Granted, some *contradiction* found in scripture may come as a result of scriptural "tampering" by those who wished to promote specific doctrine...but some of the contradiction may be only apparent to those of us who can not yet fully discern spiritual reality, because our minds are not yet opened to perceive spiritual truth and reality. Consider then that within Spiritual Reality Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead. The resurrection is real. Consider also that Jesus alluded to the fact that we who walk this Earth are already dead. Did he not say "Let the dead bury the dead"? Those of us who have not entered the Kingdom of God could be dead already, and therefore to enter the Kingdom is to be literally "born again" into Life for the first time. What I am suggesting is that a literal interpretation of the resurrection is both right and wrong. (another paradox) I believe that Jesus literally rose from material reality and death to spiritual reality and Eternal Life. So, personally, I find it closer to the truth to believe in the Resurrection literally, than to water it down to mean only that Jesus rose from the dead metaphorically. just my two cents, lily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 Consider then that within Spiritual Reality Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead... [... snip ...] What I am suggesting is that a literal interpretation of the resurrection is both right and wrong. (another paradox) I believe that Jesus literally rose from material reality and death to spiritual reality and Eternal Life. So, personally, I find it closer to the truth to believe in the Resurrection literally, than to water it down to mean only that Jesus rose from the dead metaphorically. YES!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted May 6, 2005 Share Posted May 6, 2005 I agree with that - - - I believe in the resurrection - - - the historical specifics are inconsistent within the bible, as des pointed out. ( I'm struggling with words and concepts here, so bear with me) To me, Jesus being " literally rose from material reality and death to spiritual reality and Eternal Life [sic] is true but the scripture that discusses it is not literally true or the details would be consistent. Thoughts appreciated - I have an on the brink of an ah-ha feeling.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.