Miracles

[cunninglily]

...I think you are coming from the a priori assumption that the events depicted in scripture are literally true but can be metaphorically understood.

Really? Maybe I worded something badly. On the contrary, I think these NT passages are very much not literal history. I meant to say that, when the historical and spiritual modes of perception are not yet differentiated, the two sets of meanings get collapsed down into one, such that a passage like Ps. 8 directly implies certain historical/scientific facts, such as that Jesus' body could not have been left to rot in the tomb. But that implication is due to collapsing the two sets of meanings down to one. I didn't mean that was my view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, gotcha. You didn't word anything badly, I just assumed you were speaking from your own point of view. My mistake.

 

I think, though, that we shouldn't assume the perceptions of the NT authors as all undifferentiated, or that these authors intended "collapsing" literal and metaphorical meaning into one. Not that I will make the mistake of assuming that you are, but you do allude to the different modes of perception operative "then" and "now", as if we can now see things in scripture metaphorically that the author intended literally. I'm only trying to point out that during the time in which the OT documents were written, there were already those interpreting *literally* and those interpreting *metaphorically*, therefore the key question is whether or not the OT authors wrote metaphoric-cultus history or factual-literal history, or do we collapse the two and posit that they were writing both?

 

And I understand the impulse to avoid the "reincarnation" issue. I have always been weirdly antagonistic to the belief in reincarnation myself. Those Baptist roots run deep, afterall. But do keep in mind that the Western understanding of "reincarnation", which is not as well documented or understood, is not identical with the Eastern understanding.

 

I am also, btw, not necessarily giving my own views every time I post either.

 

 

lily

[jamesAMDG]

I want to preface this by saying that I think the Biblical miracles are in fact true eevents which happened but there are a few things I wanted to get some clarification on.

 

DCJ said

 

The biblical authors did use different literary genres (narrative, poetic, apocalyptic..) in their writings to communicate truth. But the difference is fairly easy to discern. The gospels and epistles are more narrative. Dr. Luke wrote to give an accurate account of what happened. Paul (the former persecutor of the church) frequently referred to "eyewitnesses".

 

Either Jesus is alive or he is not. If not, I'm wondering how the early church survived in the face of extreme persecution. I don't see any explanation to account for the historical data. I'm curious what alternative meanings the early Christians mused as they were crucified, beheaded, and fed to lions.

 

I don't think that anyone has provided a reasonable response to these points. When the evangelists cite eyewtinesses or when Peter tells the crowds in the Acts fo the Apostles that the apostles are eyewitnesses and have seen things I'm not sure what other conclusio can be drawn than that they did in fact see them. After all some of the events after the Resurection are pretty mundane, like Jesus cooking some food for the tired apostles or eating some fish with them. Finding the meta-spiritual metaphor in what seems to be written as a dactual account seems like a stretch at best.

 

cuninglily said

 

Well, for one thing DC, the Christian martyrs of the early church actually believed that martyrdom would get them into the Kingdom of God, or into heaven.

 

Uhhmm. yeah they actually did, what with it being in Scripture and what with Jesus saying that those who persevered, even through terrible torments (no servant is greater than the master) just as he did would be in Heaven with the Lord and would be raised up on the Last Day.

 

This particular madness was widespread during the fourth century and was based on a literal interpretation of the directive, "Take up your cross..." In fact, even more so than other doctrinal differences, this understanding of what it means to "take up your cross and follow Jesus" is what ultimately split the church into orthodoxy and heresy.

 

The fourth century? Have you read any history? By the fourth century Constantine was the Emperor and eventually the persecutions were ending around the Empire. It was not, contrary to your assertion, the rejection of martyrdom that lead the Gnostics to be considered as heretics.

 

The Valentinian gnostic Christians, who considered themselves part of the Church and were not interested in separating themselves from it, were condemned as heretics because they believed that "courting" martyrdom was insanity and a literal interpretation of what was meant metaphorically (clearly, the literal versus metaphorical debate has been going on from the beginning).

 

Their use of non-canonical Scripture (read what Saint Iraneaus has to say about the number of Gospels for example in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)). Their rejectio of the Old Testament, their assertion that the "God" of the Old Testament was a defective semi-god called the Demiurge, their incorporation of over 30 "eons" who took the place of gods, their elitism based on "gnosis" or knowledge held in secret by them and the "elect" and so on. You can read the works of Saint Irenaeus or Tertullian or other early Fathers. Both of whom were writing at the end of the second and beginning of the third century.

 

We, it seems to me, need to understand what it may have meant to the minds of the biblical authors to be "abandoned to the grave" or to "see decay and corruption". For instance, there was a widespread belief in reincarnation in the early church, which in time, of course, became heresy. Those who were thought to be Divinized were those who had transcended the wheel of birth and death and knew corruption no more. We do not know with any certainty whether the OT authors adhered to this belief or not. There are scriptural indications that were not excluded from the canon that suggest that some did. This would lend a completely different perspective on what "decay and corruption" may have meant in the minds of the authors.

 

What can you offer as proof that the Early Church believed in reincarnation? For example, Saint Paul clearly contradicts it in Scripture (Letter of Saint Paul to the Hebrew 9,27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:" .

 

And the Early Fathers wrote against it too. You should read Early Church Fathers on Reincarnation . You should read the actual article as it is quite long and detailed (which is why I didn't post it)

 

Victory and Peace in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

 

jAMDG

 

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

[FredP]

I think, though, that we shouldn't assume the perceptions of the NT authors as all undifferentiated, or that these authors intended "collapsing" literal and metaphorical meaning into one.

Quite right. I am aware of this, but unfairly left it out of my original post! One thing to keep in mind is Ken Wilber's notion of an "average" or "dominant" vs. a "highest" mode of cultural consciousness. The average mode 2,000 years ago wasn't at the level of differentiating these various meanings, but those at the edge clearly were, and much of their brilliance has come down to us via the Bible. But I also think there's a fair amount of biblical material that isn't.

 

And I understand the impulse to avoid the "reincarnation" issue. I have always been weirdly antagonistic to the belief in reincarnation myself. Those Baptist roots run deep, afterall. But do keep in mind that the Western understanding of "reincarnation", which is not as well documented or understood, is not identical with the Eastern understanding.

I'm not completely antagonistic to it, but I have yet to be convinced by it in any form. Beyond believing that God is incarnated anew in every moment of creation, that is.

[Theo-Maniac]

The way I see it, some actually happened (the ressurection in particular), although not necessarily exactly as they are recorded, which does not mean that feeding the five thousand is a metaphor for unbounded sharing or something. However, some were probably originally parables or stories that Jesus told that got turned into miracles he performed later. We have to remember that the only part of the Bible that was actually written down by the originator were the letters Paul wrote to the different churches, and we don't even have the original manuscripts of most of those anymore. I'd recommend everyone that reads this go out and read some books by two men, Paramhansa Yogananda, and Kriyananda (J Donald Walters). They founded a religion in the US thats sort of Christian Hindu Mysticism that deals with a lot of this sort of thing. I'd recommend their autobiographies, "Autobiography of a Yogi", and "the Path: Autobiography of a Western Yogi", in order to understand their viewpoint. I would recommend "the Promise of Immortality", about the parallel teachings of the Bible and Bhagavad Ghita, by Kriyananda, which gets into a lot of stuff about miracles, etc, but I wouldn't recommend it as the first book of theirs to read. You would probably be best off starting with a trilogy thats collections of transcripts from lecture given by Yogananda, the first one is titled "Man's Search for Meaning" I think, not positive, the second is titled "the Divine Romance", and I don't remember the name of the third. I would definitely recommend reading at least some of the first volume before the second, even though the second goes into Christian stuff and the first barely touches on the subject, as its likely there'll be stuff in the second that will make no sense to you without reading the first.

[FredP]

I don't think that anyone has provided a reasonable response to these points.

Well, one reasonable response is that people don't walk on water, tell storms to stop, come back from the dead, or float up into the sky; and so when the Bible speaks of these things, it must not be referring to historical-scientific happenings, whether it seems to be doing so or not. Of course, your objection will be to say that the Bible judges our understanding of what is possible, and that is perfectly true, as far as it goes. But it's a long way from presuming that, unless there are significant reasons to the contrary, the obvious, straightforward reading of a Biblical text is automatically true. You may be committed to this view, or some more nuanced version of it, but it's not the only "reasonable" one, and it's not the only one that takes the biblical witness seriously.

[cunninglily]

cuninglily said

 

Well, for one thing DC, the Christian martyrs of the early church actually believed that martyrdom would get them into the Kingdom of God, or into heaven.

 

Uhhmm. yeah they actually did, what with it being in Scripture and what with Jesus saying that those who persevered, even through terrible torments (no servant is greater than the master) just as he did would be in Heaven with the Lord and would be raised up on the Last Day.

 

C'mon, you know that Jesus and the apostles never taught that we must be physically crucified or persecuted to death in order to enter the Kingdom of God. The "martyrs" were actively seeking persecution which was and is a distortion of the truth. This is not to say that times have not come and that times may not come again where persecution to the death may be unavoidable, but it is certainly not something to pray for or to actively seek out...AND actually physically dying is probably a lot easier (since we all do it anyway) than is "dying before you die" in the sense of "letting go your life" while continuing to live it.

 

The fourth century?  Have you read any history?  By the fourth century Constantine was the Emperor and eventually the persecutions were ending around the Empire.  It was not, contrary to your assertion, the rejection of martyrdom that lead the Gnostics to be considered as heretics.

 

Sorry. You are right. I've got "fourth century" on the brain. However, it is not MY assertion that the rejection of martyrdom sealed the process that had already begun regarding doctrinal differences that ultimately ended in some Christians being considered heretical. Up until the martyrdom issue came to a head, the Valentinian gnostic Christians (at least) were still a part of the larger Church. This particular issue separated the orthodox from the heretics decisively. This I have learned from historical commentary and other sources...I didn't make it up.

 

Their use of non-canonical Scripture (read what Saint Iraneaus has to say about the number of Gospels for example in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)).  Their rejectio of the Old Testament, their assertion that the "God" of the Old Testament was a defective semi-god called the Demiurge, their incorporation of over 30 "eons" who took the place of gods, their elitism based on "gnosis" or knowledge held in secret by them and the "elect" and so on.  You can read the works of Saint Irenaeus or Tertullian or other early Fathers.  Both of whom were writing at the end of the second and beginning of the third century.

 

I am just now studying the Early Church Fathers including Clement and Origen, and I understand that there were many differences in doctrinal opinion between those considered orthodox and those later condemned as heretics. The "elitism" charge is of particular interest to me currently. Surely you can see that there are many instances in scripture in which certain knowledge was not given out to the uninitiated. Even Jesus is reputed to have spoken in parables to those "outside" his chosen circle, and taught differently depending on who He was speaking to. Paul also clearly made the distinction between the "milk" of the gospel suitable for "babes in Christ" and the "strong meat" for the more fully "initiated". The early orthodox Church Fathers wanted a uniform and consistent Church doctrine. This is difficult to maintain if those in "The Way" are receiving revelation that is simply not available to all by virtue of their level of spiritual growth.

 

What can you offer as proof that the Early Church believed in reincarnation?  For example, Saint Paul clearly contradicts it in Scripture (Letter of Saint Paul to the Hebrew 9,27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:"  . 

 

And the Early Fathers wrote against it too.  You should read Early Church Fathers on Reincarnation .  You should read the actual article as it is quite long and detailed (which is why I didn't post it)

jamesAMDG.blogspot.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, the whole reincarnation thing is fairly new to me. I've only recently begun to explore it. But I wouldn't constrain my study to only those "Church Fathers" who condemned it. I would also assume that because it was condemned that it must have been a problem, ie, somebody must have believed it in the Early Church or condemnation of the belief would not have been necessary. Wouldn't you think? But I don't yet have sufficient grasp of the subject to "prove" or "disprove" how many actually believed this in the days of the Early Church, or if any of the OT authors believed it or not.

 

You seem to be coming from the position that only what was canonized or made orthodox is True and that what was then considered heretical is, well, heretical and not true. I am not yet biased in that way. What was once considered heretical may be begging reconsideration today and may contain important "Truths" that are of value to the Body of Christ.

 

The difference between us, James, is that you have found your position and are apparently satisfied with it. I am just not as sure as you are that I know what the truth is concerning all these matters and so I am still actively seeking among oft-times contrary views.

 

I stated quite clearly that I experience a resistance to the reincarnation doctrine. But I don't assume that because I don't like it or that because Irenaeus and Tertullian didn't like it, that it did not form the worldview of some important early christian thinkers and writers, and that there is no truth in it. Therefore, it is worth exploring in my mind.

 

 

lily

[AletheiaRivers]

Lily, you might want to check out this:

 

Lost Christianities

 

I bought the series a few months ago on DVD. It's awesome. It's also available on casette, CD and video (VHS).

[des]

des:

>>hings that way and just not cared. That isn't precisely what I meant. Nice to have someone with such an excellent grasp of language. :-)

 

Fred:

>All those philosophy dollars hard at work.

 

Yes, I only took 3 credits in philosophy. I'm sure you can tell. :-)

(Of course that was back in 1887 or something. :-))

 

>Seriously though, I'm glad you didn't take my response as nit-picking.

 

Even if I did I would consider it interesting and thoughtful nit-picking. :-P

 

> It's a subtle but important distinction. I'm not saying, of course, that the biblical authors were stupid and didn't know the difference between reality and fairy tales. But when they pored over the Jewish scriptures to glean some meaning (and some hope) from Jesus' ministry and execution -- a well-established interpretive tradition within Judaism -- it just never occured to them that those passages' metaphorical or spiritual meanings could be divorced from their "literal" implications.

 

That's exactly right, imo and reading. I also don't think they thought exactly the same way. I know to us it seems that everyone thinks as we do.

Any of you know what Theory of Mind is? It is the idea that you can think about how others, what others are thinking (supposedly something autistic people cannot do well). (This is from AutismUSA net: "By not understanding that other people think differently than themselves, many autistic individuals may have problems relating socially and communicating to other people. That is, they may not be able to anticipate what others will say or do in various situations." Well it seems to me that normal people have this to in regards to peoples of different times and cultures, and they believe that they interpret things exactly the same way that we would. But we know that people's atttitudes, beliefs in many areas are radically different in other cultures.

 

>Orthodox Christianity still reads these OT passages as prophecies referring to Christ, and relies on the very NT passages that are based on them to confirm the link. The old habits die hard. How hard is it to read Isaiah 7:14, 9:6f. without thinking of Matthew and Luke, or 53:3f. as referring to the crucifixion?

 

I doubt I could even read them differently now, except by very conscious focusing or something.

 

--des

[cunninglily]

Lily, you might want to check out this:

 

Lost Christianities

 

I bought the series a few months ago on DVD. It's awesome. It's also available on casette, CD and video (VHS).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh yikes! Is it almost Christmas?

 

Thanks Aletheia, you just got my "wanter" activated.

 

 

lily

[Theo-Maniac]

I'll definitely be adding that to my "I need to buy this" list of resources on Mysticism & Christianity. Thanks for the link.

[DCJ]

As many times as someone plays the "how else do you explain the early church?" card, you're going to get the same answer

The question seems legitimate to me.. with all this talk of gleaning meaning from the resurrection accounts, it seems reasonable to seek what meaning the disciples and early church ascribed to these events, and how it affected their behavior. It's a sound way of determining what actually happened, or at least what they thought happened.

 

which leads to the conclusion that people CAN believe a lie and even die for it. The examples throughout religious history are, sadly, endless. So, its not good scholarship or sound thinking to believe that because someone is willing to die for an idea that this alone makes the idea True.

You are right that people can and are willing to die for a lie, even if they believe it is true. However, it's very unlikely that they'd willingly die if they KNOW it's a lie. Why would they lie about seeing the risen Jesus, and die for it, if they knew it wasn't true. It doesn't sound like they knew there was a dead body of Jesus, which could've been produced by the Jewish authorities or the Romans. None of the "eyewitnesses" denounced their testimony. It's not an iron-clad proof of the resurrection, but it should be explained.

 

Well, one reasonable response is that people don't walk on water, tell storms to stop, come back from the dead, or float up into the sky; and so when the Bible speaks of these things, it must not be referring to historical-scientific happenings, whether it seems to be doing so or not. Of course, your objection will be to say that the Bible judges our understanding of what is possible, and that is perfectly true, as far as it goes. But it's a long way from presuming that, unless there are significant reasons to the contrary, the obvious, straightforward reading of a Biblical text is automatically true. You may be committed to this view, or some more nuanced version of it, but it's not the only "reasonable" one, and it's not the only one that takes the biblical witness seriously.

Taking the biblical witness seriously means taking it in the way in which the authors meant it to be taken. IMO, having an a priori assumption against miracles, especially when we're supposedly dealing with God, is not the right way to begin. So our task is to find out what the authors were trying to communicate, and either agree or disagree with it. But let's not presume the authors were trying to say one thing IF in fact they were trying to say something else.

[FredP]

Taking the biblical witness seriously means taking it in the way in which the authors meant it to be taken.  IMO, having an a priori assumption against miracles, especially when we're supposedly dealing with God, is not the right way to begin.  So our task is to find out what the authors were trying to communicate, and either agree or disagree with it.  But let's not presume the authors were trying to say one thing IF in fact they were trying to say something else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about having an a priori assumption that the obvious, straightforward meaning of a biblical text is what God intended to convey by it? Bottom line is: we both bring assumptions to this enterprise of understanding Scripture. I've tried to be as explicit as possible about mine.

 

I do not mind people bringing assumptions to the table; in fact I encourage it. What else could we do? What I reject is the idea (it's actually a very modern one) that the Bible plainly both tells us exactly what it means, and provides ample evidence for that meaning, without relying on any other more foundational assumptions. I'm not talking about an either-or of "Do you believe in God or science?" -- personally, I believe God transcends science in every conceivable way. The question is, what presuppositions do you bring to interpreting the Bible? I don't believe that miracles are categorically out of the question, or that the laws of the physical universe constrain God's activity (any such constraint is self-imposed); but I also do not think that just because the Bible apparently says a miracle occured, that it just plain occured, and that's the final word on the matter. There's a deep self-referentiality problem to the idea that the Bible instructs us on how to interpret itself, and the problem doesn't go away by taking it at its most straightforward reading.

 

The Catholic Church, incidentally, doesn't read the Bible this way, for that very reason. The authority to interpret comes directly from Christ, passed down to the teaching office of the Church through ordination. In this case, the operative assumption is that Jesus really envisioned a Catholic Church based on a hierarchical teaching authority, with Peter at its head, and that the chain is relatively unbroken. It's a two-way circular authorization (Bible <-> Magisterium), rather than a one-way one (Bible only). I'm not sure which one takes more faith to believe. Anyway...

 

The Bible is not an almanac, a biography, or a scientific treatise. The Gospels are biographical, but they're not biographies. The fact that they contain numerous mundane details without any obvious "spiritual" meaning, doesn't mean the the purpose of the text is therefore historical rememberance, and so the event happened the way the text says it does. The purpose of the Gospel is to reveal the good news of Christ through Jesus. The mode is sometimes epic, sometimes biographical, sometimes liturgical. But to read each passage through an obvious, straightforward lens is still an assumption, not a lack of one.

[FredP]

The purpose of the Gospel is to reveal the good news of Christ through Jesus.  The mode is sometimes epic, sometimes biographical, sometimes liturgical.  But to read each passage through an obvious, straightforward lens is still an assumption, not a lack of one.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: why does a spiritual reading of the gospel material require a defense, when a straightforward literal one doesn't? "That's just what it says" isn't a defense: I'm reading the same text you are. "The Church teaches that that is what it means" is starting to grasp the scope of the problem: now we're at least self-consciously arguing about assumptions. If you've put yourself under the teaching authority of the Church, that will settle it for you, and this whole discussion will seem to be pandering about whose idiosyncratic reading is better than whose. If you haven't, you may or may not regard traditional doctrine with great respect (I do), but you aren't operating under the assumption that it is correct simply by virtue of its authority (that's the key).

 

[As an editorial aside, I realize that this interpretation thing is not a cosmetic issue that we can simply agree to disagree about. It really does strike at the heart of our differences. For many people, it is the single defining element of the Christian system, upon which everything else rests. For me personally, it was the single thread that unraveled everything. Those are radically different approaches to the same raw material. I really appreciate those of you who come here as non-progressives to share your convictions and keep us on our toes.]

[DCJ]

What about having an a priori assumption that the obvious, straightforward meaning of a biblical text is what God intended to convey by it?

That's the assumption we must have if we are ever to correctly interpret anything we read -- that the author is trying to communicate truth to us via the plain reading of the text. For example, you asked a question. You didn't use hyperbole or some other literary device that might cause me to interpret your statement metaphorically; therefore, I interpret your statement to be a literal question. That's the plain meaning. This kind of interpretation isn't something unique to the Bible; it's how we approach all literature. And the Bible is literature -- it's got narrative, poetry, hyperbole, that must all be interpreted correctly for us to accurately know what the author is trying to communicate. And if you take the totality of the Bible -- the Old Testament narratives, the gospels, the epistles -- and interpret them according to this same plain hermeneutic we use for all literature, while considering the testimony of archaeology and extra-biblical history, we get a certain picture of the Bible's meaning and what the authors were trying to communicate. And the person who deviates from this picture must assume the burden of proof by showing where the interpretation has broken down. Otherwise, there is no objective meaning to text, and the only meaning it has is whatever I subjectively want it to mean. Any number of meanings can be applied to a given text that the author never intended to convey. Which is exactly what has happened with respect to the Bible.

[FredP]

That's the plain meaning.  This kind of interpretation isn't something unique to the Bible; it's how we approach all literature.  And the Bible is literature -- it's got narrative, poetry, hyperbole, that must all be interpreted correctly for us to accurately know what the author is trying to communicate.

This is how we approach all literature, by taking its direct, obvious meaning? So the central point of The Odyssey is to chronicle the adventures of a man named Odysseus, who took a journey around the Mediterranean world? And all the psychological and spiritual symbolism in the story (even meanings the author didn't consciously intend or realize) has nothing to do with the actual meaning? But The Odyssey is a work of fiction, you say. Oh, and where does it say that? The opening page doesn't say, "The Odyssey: A Work of Fiction": the community of readers approaches the text and determines that from the available clues. Does the journey to the underworld sound like history remembered, or like some other kind of symbolism? Does a story about a conversation between Jesus' and Pontius Pilate (which no one was around to hear) sound like history remembered, or like a symbolic confrontation between spiritual and earthly powers? Sure, you can make the somewhat counterintuitive claim that the Holy Spirit conveniently communcated the gist of the conversation to the evangelists, but what does the plain, obvious reading suggest?

 

Otherwise, there is no objective meaning to text, and the only meaning it has is whatever I subjectively want it to mean.

This is a false dichotomy. One objective meaning and unlimited subjective meanings aren't the only two choices. There are many interpretations of the Jesus-Pilate conversation that don't pass the muster of the available clues (that the Matthew smoked some bad herbs and a weird dream, for example). In fact, there are many more bad interpretations than good ones. But I can't see how the only alternative is to suppose that there can be exactly one, and only one possible meaning, which (conveniently) happens to be the historical one. Just because it's narrative, doesn't mean its primary or only meaning is to convey history. Narrative happens to be the most popular form of fiction. Even the most conservative of the ancient theologians read the Bible on many different levels. (I realize that they assumed the historical reading as well, but my point was that it has been long recognized that there are multiple true meanings of many of these passages.)

[DCJ]

You are right that there can be more than one meaning in certain biblical narratives. But specifically with the resurrection, you seem to be rejecting one of those meanings: the historical reading.

 

What is the appropriate way we should interpret the epistles, in which the various authors seem to speak frequently of the physical, risen Jesus? They also seem to imply a double meaning: the historical one ("Jesus rose from the dead..."), and the spiritual meaning that always follows ("therefore, we have a sure hope...").

[FredP]

You are right that there can be more than one meaning in certain biblical narratives.  But specifically with the resurrection, you seem to be rejecting one of those meanings: the historical reading.

That is correct. Not because it's a historical or scientific impossibility; if God wanted to bring a person back from the dead, I'm quite sure God could do it. The fundamental problem for me is that, as a historical event, it leads inexorably to the physical ascension of Jesus' body into the sky after forty days. Where did it go? To the right hand of God, of course -- but that's not a location in space. It's much more obvious in the case of the ascension that we're dealing in pure symbolism: that the sky is a pre-Copernican symbolic metaphor to illustrate the real ascent of Jesus Christ to the Divine state. But if you work your way backward in the narrative from there, you've got only two options as I see it: 1) the resurrection is physical, but not the ascension (and all the inconsistencies that entails); or 2) neither are physical.

[AletheiaRivers]

metaphor to illustrate the real ascent of Jesus Christ to the Divine state

 

I'm hoping you might elaborate. Perhaps on your Christology thread? Sounds intriguing.

[des]

> leads inexorably to the physical ascension of Jesus' body into the sky after forty days. Where did it go? To the right hand of God, of course -- but that's not a location in space.

 

Well another thing, Fred (and a very good post that was), was that physical ascension to the "right hand of God" implies some things about God that are very limiting (if you took this literally). Things like God has hands (although I think even the most literal readers would not think of God that way) but another is that God is UP and we are DOWN. It describe a God as separate from us in some major way. It is only understandable as a spiritual/metaphorical understanding.

 

 

Thanks for your insightful post. (Almost put inciteful :-))

--des

[FredP]

Well another thing, Fred (and a very good post that was), was that physical ascension to the "right hand of God" implies some things about God that are very limiting (if you took this literally). Things like God has hands (although I think even the most literal readers would not think of God that way) but another is that God is UP and we are DOWN. It describe a God as separate from us in some major way. It is only understandable as a spiritual/metaphorical understanding.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to get at with the "pre-Copernican" symbolism thing. There are many very real senses in which God is UP and we are DOWN, but relative location in space isn't one of them.

[FredP]

metaphor to illustrate the real ascent of Jesus Christ to the Divine state

 

I'm hoping you might elaborate. Perhaps on your Christology thread? Sounds intriguing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm just talking about the upward aspect of the movement of the World back to God, that I've referred to elsewhere. I anticipate it will come up a lot in the Fundamental Theology thread as well.

[DCJ]

The fundamental problem for me is that, as a historical event, it leads inexorably to the physical ascension of Jesus' body into the sky after forty days.  Where did it go?  To the right hand of God, of course -- but that's not a location in space.  It's much more obvious in the case of the ascension that we're dealing in pure symbolism: that the sky is a pre-Copernican symbolic metaphor to illustrate the real ascent of Jesus Christ to the Divine state.  But if you work your way backward in the narrative from there, you've got only two options as I see it: 1) the resurrection is physical, but not the ascension (and all the inconsistencies that entails); or 2) neither are physical.

That is an interesting question, but I don't think it requires abondoning the historicity of the resurrection. I'm sure there's a baby somewhere in that bathwater.

 

First, since heaven (where God "is") precedes the universe, it is most likely in some other dimension, so I don't think it follows that a physical Jesus couldn't exist there. I certainly wouldn't want to make drastic theological assumptions based on that alone.

 

Second, you are right that an ascension requires a resurrection. And the New Testament authors argued for the veracity of the resurrection probably more than anything else. Paul spends a great deal of time spelling this out in 1 Cor. 15. In fact he says that if Christ has not been raised, then we of all men are most to be pitied, and we are still in our sins. Quite simply he believed there is no Gospel without the resurrection. And Luke, who had "carefully investigated everything" in order to give an "orderly account" forTheophilus, presents the ascension in historical language. He speaks of Jesus being taken up "before their very eyes", and they were "looking intently up" as he went.

 

Thirdly, the ascension is important for doctrinal and pastoral purposes. The disciples were told that Jesus would return just as he had left, when there will be a final resurrection of all people. Christians look forward to that day when he will make all things right. But for now, Paul says that we ourselves have been lifted up and "seated at the right hand of the Father". It's in this way that we are able to follow Jesus: in his death (to sin), burial, and resurrection (new life), and we are positionally ascended to the Father, even while we are still located on the world for now.

[FredP]

First, since heaven (where God "is") precedes the universe, it is most likely in some other dimension, so I don't think it follows that a physical Jesus couldn't exist there.  I certainly wouldn't want to make drastic theological assumptions based on that alone. 

Heaven certainly precedes the universe in Being; but when you take into account the very well-established ancient picture of the cosmos which locates Heaven above the celestial dome, you can see why, within that framework, Jesus' ascent to God must have meant that he scaled the physical distance between Earth and Heaven. Personally I'm not sure whether Luke wrote these words based on deductive inference from ancient cosmology, or whether he consciously used the words symbolically, knowing full well that his readers wouldn't have thought he was talking about a literal event. But either way, I just don't think Jesus actually levitated up to Heaven. I just can't convince myself of that, and I find it awfully hard to believe that doing so is a test of my faith.