Jeannot Posted May 29, 2006 Share Posted May 29, 2006 I'm not sure that the BOTH-AND isn't the default Christian orthodoxy - I certainly haven't met any Christians who argue that the resurrection was a mere bodily resuscitation. True, they don't. But they often claim to know with absolute certainty about something that, if true, is so far beyond normal human experience as to require "blind faith". While they are absolutely certain that Jesus rose physically from the dead, I've never seen one instance where that same resurrection power is operative in his disciples (as he said it would be). When asked why God is no longer raising people from the dead (which I assume means resuscitation), they say, "Well, God don't do that no more cuz we got the whole Bible now." And perhaps that notion, that God is inconsistent, is what liberals find so troubling. So the resurrection is both bodily/physical and spiritual and more. I hope so. But I just don't know. The third ('progressive'?) position suffers from having to face the original Pauline assertion - if Christ be not raised, is our hope in him in vain? That is, if Christ is dead, why should I place my trust in him or his teachings? I'm not saying that it can't answer this charge - but you will need an answer to give, because people are going to ask. True. And I would answer that just because Lincoln, Washington, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King are dead in no way invalidates what they did, believed, or taught. In fact, it usually takes death before we realize the contributions that great leaders have made to our world. But then, Paul's gospel hingepin was *not* the life, teachings, and example set by Christ either. Paul saw Christ's death and resurrection as the only way in which God could ever have a relationship with humanity. Paul was, I believe, a legalist. If Paul's gospel is embodied in the "cross of Christ", one short period of 2.5 days, then it is no wonder that he felt that Christ's resurrection was absolutely necessary. The Pharisees, unlike the Sadducees, seemed to be 100% convinced of a future resurrection. And Paul, despite his "conversion" was still very Pharisitical in his outlook. His doctrines are replete with legal terminology. Paul understanding of grace was not a negation of the legal system but, rather, a cheat within it. And even Paul's grace has a requirement -- both the death of Christ at the hands of God plus belief on the part of the Christian. Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Is he, literally, with us now and forevermore as he promised? I prefer to put this into what Borg calls a "suspense account." I suspend being dogmatic on the issue because the facts don't line up, the eye-witnessed don't corroborate, and the proof is off on Alpha Centauri or somewhere else. wayfarer <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But what did Paul mean by "resurrection"? He never claims to have seen Jesus as a reanimated body. What he saw was a blinding flash of light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davestelzer Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Davestelzer: This makes a lot more sense to me than most of the myths about Jesus that have been handed down to us over the centuries. But, I make this point knowing that myth making has been the essential ingredient in belief systyems for at least 10,000 years, and probably longer than that. What we have in the case of Jesus stories is a 2,000 year long disagreement between interpreters and orthodoxy about what may have happened and when. Welcome to the boards Dave ! flow.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you for the warm welcome flowperson! As an interpreter I have to acknowledge that without adequate information in the bible I am ultimately forced to speculate like everyone else. An orthodox person must speculate that he/she has been given adequate information... I hope that lights a fuse! Dave S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Dave: I have mentioned this technique elsewhere here on the boards sometime ago. I find that if I read the KJV and trace the root meanings of words or phrases I have questions about back to their Greek and Chaldean origins in a Strong's Concordance, I am much more able to derive a mental picture regarding the array of meanings that are possible and probable. It takes a long time to do it this way, but I haven't found a better way to improve my interpretive outlook on the scriptures in the bible. Hope it helps you on your quest. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davestelzer Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Dave: I have mentioned this technique elsewhere here on the boards sometime ago. I find that if I read the KJV and trace the root meanings of words or phrases I have questions about back to their Greek and Chaldean origins in a Strong's Concordance, I am much more able to derive a mental picture regarding the array of meanings that are possible and probable. It takes a long time to do it this way, but I haven't found a better way to improve my interpretive outlook on the scriptures in the bible. Hope it helps you on your quest. flow.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Flow: Spong has done two word studies that he mentions in This Hebrew Lord and other works. He notes that the early Jewish authors describe God by the terms "ruach" and "nephesh". One means 'wind' and the other means 'breath'. The terms describe God in a very natural way. There was no science to aid in the writings. No biology or meteorology to explain further. Early writers had to go by their own meager observations. The highest level of explanation of God is found in 1 John toward the end of the bible. God is revealed as 'Love'. "Sh/he who abides in love abides in God and God in her". There is a higher revelation of God not found in the bible: God is Unconditional Love! Could it be that no amount or intensity of study of the bible would ever result in the discovery that God is Unconditional Love? To me it is obvious that the bible may be somewhat inspiring but may be limited in it's ability to understand modern contemporary terminology of God. My point is that the Love of God is not simply the bible but that the Love of God is greater than the bible. The bible is useful but limited by it's time frame. This observation may be helpful and necessary to learn to love all of God's creatures across the racial and gender gaps and to love and accept all the untouchables in our multi- cultural society. Do you agree? Just curious, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnosteric Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Has anyone mentioned Osiris, Dionysus, Bachus, and/or Mithras? All those myths are very powerful spiritual allegories.......just like the Jesus myth. IMO, the resurrection is, quite possibly, the most important part of the myth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davestelzer Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Has anyone mentioned Osiris, Dionysus, Bachus, and/or Mithras? All those myths are very powerful spiritual allegories.......just like the Jesus myth. IMO, the resurrection is, quite possibly, the most important part of the myth. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gnosteric, When I was young I thought it was imperative to believe in the ressurection. I grasped desperately after the myth only to find later that I must die for my own sins... Now (at 50) I just want to 'enter God's rest'. What is important to you about the ressurection? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherman Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 The bible is useful but limited by it's time frame. Dave, I like Marcus Borg's suggestion in The Heart of Christianity that the Bible is sacrament. In other words, it becomes a medium for experiencing God right here and now. So even though the Bible has a cultural/historical frame (just like any book), it can be a platform for a brand new experience. <<Geez Fatherman, let's see how many different ways you can say the same thing >> For your consideration, Fatherman (also David) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Good grief. My husband's name is Dave. How many of you are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davestelzer Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 The bible is useful but limited by it's time frame. Dave, I like Marcus Borg's suggestion in The Heart of Christianity that the Bible is sacrament. In other words, it becomes a medium for experiencing God right here and now. So even though the Bible has a cultural/historical frame (just like any book), it can be a platform for a brand new experience. <<Geez Fatherman, let's see how many different ways you can say the same thing >> For your consideration, Fatherman (also David) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fatherman, My curiosity is peaked to read Borg's The Heart of Christianity! I have read Meeting Jesus Again... and it was a keeper. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatherman Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Fatherman, My curiosity is peaked to read Borg's The Heart of Christianity! I have read Meeting Jesus Again... and it was a keeper. Dave I haven't finished it, but many folks on this site have. I'm loving it so far. I have no problem recommending based on what I've read. I think it's go to be right up your alley, Dave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 My curiosity is peaked to read Borg's The Heart of Christianity! I have read Meeting Jesus Again... and it was a keeper. I have not only read it, but attended a class at church that went through it chapter by chapter and discussed it. I found it a a "belief changing" experience. Get it! Read it! You won't be disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnosteric Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Gnosteric, When I was young I thought it was imperative to believe in the ressurection. I grasped desperately after the myth only to find later that I must die for my own sins... Now (at 50) I just want to 'enter God's rest'. What is important to you about the ressurection? Dave Dave, you must be aware that my current interpretation of the resurrection is clearly tied to my being a Gnostic. In fact, prior to Gnosticism, I almost left Christianity entirely because of a literalist understanding of it. For me, this life is all about awakening to the Divine Spark in each of us. It’s about our ongoing spiritual growth that transforms us from a place of ignorance to our true Divinity. We become less attached to our everyday (or material) strivings (wealth, consumerism, status, power….) and more interested in our spiritual nature. As +Stephan Hoeller says: The Gnostics regarded the term resurrection as a word-symbol for gnosis, or true spiritual awakening. When we awaken to the consciousness of who we are, where we come from, and where we are going, we have arrived at knowledge of the things that truly are. To the Gnostic tradition, Christ’s resurrection is the mysteriousinducement facilitating our own resurrection or awakening. In a manner that is related (but only to a degree) to people who have “born again” experiences, the Gnostic has these multiple spiritual moments of intuitive, experiential knowing that transforms her/him to a deeper level of fullness. The ultimate gnosis (IMO usually only happens after several lifetimes…..not three days ) is the final stage that returns one to the “God consciousness” that many call the Invisible Spirit. To me, the Easter story is a mythical representation of this process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Dave: I have mentioned this technique elsewhere here on the boards sometime ago. I find that if I read the KJV and trace the root meanings of words or phrases I have questions about back to their Greek and Chaldean origins in a Strong's Concordance, I am much more able to derive a mental picture regarding the array of meanings that are possible and probable. It takes a long time to do it this way, but I haven't found a better way to improve my interpretive outlook on the scriptures in the bible. Hope it helps you on your quest. flow.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Flow: Spong has done two word studies that he mentions in This Hebrew Lord and other works. He notes that the early Jewish authors describe God by the terms "ruach" and "nephesh". One means 'wind' and the other means 'breath'. The terms describe God in a very natural way. There was no science to aid in the writings. No biology or meteorology to explain further. Early writers had to go by their own meager observations. The highest level of explanation of God is found in 1 John toward the end of the bible. God is revealed as 'Love'. "Sh/he who abides in love abides in God and God in her". There is a higher revelation of God not found in the bible: God is Unconditional Love! Could it be that no amount or intensity of study of the bible would ever result in the discovery that God is Unconditional Love? To me it is obvious that the bible may be somewhat inspiring but may be limited in it's ability to understand modern contemporary terminology of God. My point is that the Love of God is not simply the bible but that the Love of God is greater than the bible. The bible is useful but limited by it's time frame. This observation may be helpful and necessary to learn to love all of God's creatures across the racial and gender gaps and to love and accept all the untouchables in our multi- cultural society. Do you agree? Just curious, Dave <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I greatly respect Spong's work, but it is his method that might not yield true images of what the writers of the myths in the bible were driving at. When one traces the roots of bible words and phrases in the KJV back to the Chaldean and Greek roots in a Strong's Concordance, one finds some interesting word and concept trails to follow. For Instance, tracing the word "G-d" in the Chaldean Dictionary yields the prevalence of the concepts of "roll", "post", "oak", and others, but prevalently these concepts. Assuredly these are OT word trails and we may only speculate as to what the writers were driving at. I agree with you though that the roots of most cultures worldwide land on the side of the creator G-d as the life-giver in the form of the "pneuma" or "breath". flow.... 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.