Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[allfoak]

You mean John 1? I'm not a Christian or particularly theologically minded. Please explain it to me.

The story in the Gospels is the story of the transformation of man hidden behind a quasi-historical theme.
Jesus accomplshed the goal that everyone is destined to accomplish.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think the myth may have any meaning?

Perhaps, but that leads directly to the questions of "what meaning" and "to whom was it meaningful?"

I have little to say on this subject, as and atheist, except that humans have been inventing just such mythical stories throughout all of the history that we can recover. I say "inventing" because it seems fairly clear that all of our myths cannot be simultaneously true (meaning most must be false, even if they provide "meaning" to those who knew them), and perhaps none of them is.

And in the end, if they are nothing but the product of human imagination inventing stories to explain the situations in which they found themselves, well, what does that actually tell you?

To Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and others, the resurrection doesn't really have any meaning -- neither as factual reality nor as spiritual allegory. But then again, the spiritual allegories of Hindus are rarely seen as very useful to most Christians, either.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The story in the Gospels is the story of the transformation of man hidden behind a quasi-historical theme.
Jesus accomplshed the goal that everyone is destined to accomplish.

So like the Buddha becoming enlightened? Do you think we can all become like Christ or Buddha? I'm not sure that I would cope very well with that but how would I go about achieving this exalted state?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Perhaps, but that leads directly to the questions of "what meaning" and "to whom was it meaningful?"

I have little to say on this subject, as and atheist, except that humans have been inventing just such mythical stories throughout all of the history that we can recover. I say "inventing" because it seems fairly clear that all of our myths cannot be simultaneously true (meaning most must be false, even if they provide "meaning" to those who knew them), and perhaps none of them is.

And in the end, if they are nothing but the product of human imagination inventing stories to explain the situations in which they found themselves, well, what does that actually tell you?

To Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and others, the resurrection doesn't really have any meaning -- neither as factual reality nor as spiritual allegory. But then again, the spiritual allegories of Hindus are rarely seen as very useful to most Christians, either.

Thank you for your post. One way of viewing the resurrection is the power of teachings of each great religious founders to bring a insight and pattern of life to each follower. Viewed in that manner it is rising from the death of unbelief to new life of belief. Put another way the transformative effect of the example of Their lives and teachings. This would be a theme central to all religion.

Interestingly the theme of resurrection of the dead is an important part of Islamic scholarship as with the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you for your post. One way of viewing the resurrection is the power of teachings of each great religious founders to bring a insight and pattern of life to each follower. Viewed in that manner it is rising from the death of unbelief to new life of belief. Put another way the transformative effect of the example of Their lives and teachings. This would be a theme central to all religion.

Interestingly the theme of resurrection of the dead is an important part of Islamic scholarship as with the Baha'i Faith.

I am sorry if I'm being a "spiritual downer," which is not my intention (my "spirituality" must obviously be different from those with a religious bent), but there is another way to look at it. Rather than insight into something reflecting what might be, we might also see all human mythical stories as being insight into what all humans (who all know that we live and die) hope for. That's actually quite a different thing, in my view.

This is the same idea that I've tried to express about "the Golden Rule." Every religion has one, so I've heard the argument that God must, therefore, somehow inform every religion. Yet I see it the other way round -- that our own nature informs how we formulate our philosophies - our "guides for good living." As a social species, the Golden Rule (however it is phrased) has immense practical value, and could hardly be missed by anybody who was thinking from a human perspective -- no matter what religion or language he was thinking in.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd like to point out that the Bible (including NT) is generally annihilationist and talks about the afterlife as a parable. This is the point where literalism does the most harm to the Christian and I suppose to people of other faiths as well who have fallen under the modern spell.

To begin with: Stories about the afterlife in the Bible are inconsistent with each other. One has Lazarus and the Rich Man standing on opposite sides of a chasm. Another has Samuel as a 'Ghost'. Find me another, and it will also be inconsistent.

To continue: Statements in the Bible are read truthfully but not in a literal way.....

Stories about the afterlife are inconsistent with each other in the Bible. The above is a quote from a post I made previously.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, it is an allegorical representation of an inward process.
Somehow Christians think if it was not all literal then there is no savior but their savior is within them.

What you believe and what they believe are completely different not true or false, just different.

Why would it be wrong, bad, or unrealistic to think of jesus rising from the dead to be literal when it (like a hug) brings the same affect as if someone said I love you but bypassed the hug because you feel it inside?

What is wrong with the physical nature of christianity? Both evangelists and many non-christians get hung up on that together. Puzzles me all the time.

 

[allfoak]

So like the Buddha becoming enlightened? Do you think we can all become like Christ or Buddha? I'm not sure that I would cope very well with that but how would I go about achieving this exalted state?

Purification of course.
Purification of mind and body.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Are you aware that many early Christians did not believe in a physical resurrection at all?

Another aspect is that the Christian world view included a physical hell below the earth and heaven up in the sky. The earth was the centre of the universe. That creates problems if we still have this belief because we know a lot more about what's up there in space now than we used to.

If we see heaven and hell as being in the invisible spiritual realm then it creates difficulties with Jesus literally rising into heaven if that means the sky.

That's what their source, the bible, teaches. If it were not literal, then their salvation would not be literal (as in your other post). They value the literal nature of something just as many naturalist atheist value finding the literal physical (the facts) and disregard the spirit-ual aspect of life.

I get both views. I used to believe in the "it's within" through Zen Buddhism and a couple other things. When I went to Catholicism and experienced the physical nature of something is no different than the inner nature of something, that duality vanished. There isn't a "within" is true but "without" is false. It's all together.

With jesus, in scripture it is spiritual (his spirit rising) and it is literal (his body rising). Without that physical rising-regardless if it's true by the laws of physics-then christians arent saved.

If there is no real jesus, there is no real christianity. Literal is heavily important. I don't understand how anyone can bypass that as part of their spiritual path and call it spiritual.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am sorry if I'm being a "spiritual downer," .

Not at all. I really appreciate your view and it certainly makes sense. I ask questions for OP threads like this in an open ended manner so anyone who is interested can provide a perspective.

 

[psychoslice]

Its a metaphor, we all resurrect when we become One with the Sours, we change from the carnal to the spiritual, we experience being One with all, this can also be called, Awakening, or Enlightenment.

 

[allfoak]

What you believe and what they believe are completely different not true or false, just different.

Why would it be wrong, bad, or unrealistic to think of jesus rising from the dead to be literal when it (like a hug) brings the same affect as if someone said I love you but bypassed the hug because you feel it inside?

What is wrong with the physical nature of christianity? Both evangelists and many non-christians get hung up on that together. Puzzles me all the time.

Nothing.
All i am saying is that we should eventually grow up and realize that there is something else behind the concept of Santa Clause other than getting presents.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nothing.
All i am saying is that we should eventually grow up and realize that there is something else behind the concept of Santa Clause other than getting presents.

I always wondered why Santa Clause can't be real, true, and ethical to grown ups just as it is for children.

If there is nothing with it, why do they need to grow up?

Have you seen Drop Dead Fred?

She got over that "Since I am an adult, I can't have imaginary friends" and made friends with Fred. It was a graduation of being an adult and having believing in things unproven too. If you haven't seen the movie, it's cute and corny. Six Sense is another example but Cole wasn't an adult during the movie. If he was and the same thing happened, I wonder if he would denied it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If there is no real jesus, there is no real christianity. Literal is heavily important. I don't understand how anyone can bypass that as part of their spiritual path and call it spiritual.

This is really the thinking that came from St Paul when he said if we don't have the resurrection then our teaching is in vain. 1 Corinthians 15:14

When considering St Paul's words we need to consider the context. For example earlier in the same chapter, Paul is saying Jesus had appeared to him as He appeared to all the apostles.

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1 Corinthians 15:7-8

However we know that Paul never saw Jesus. He heard Jesus speaking to Him on the road to Damascus Acts 9:1-7. This was his conversion experience.

This is an important clue that Paul is not speaking about the physically resurrected Christ but something else. So what else could Paul be referring to?

Abdu'l-Baha decribes Christs' resurrection as follows:


"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. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. 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, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.


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, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it."

For Christians it is clearly hard to let go of the idea of a physically resurrected Christ and to see a deeper symbolic meaning instead.

Once we are prepared to accept that this might be true, instead of a physical resurrection, then we can further investigate including what Jesus said about HIs resurrection and the appearances as recorded in the Gospels and Acts.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Stories about the afterlife are inconsistent with each other in the Bible. The above is a quote from a post I made previously.

Interesting because the teachings of Moses said little about an afterlife. What implications does all this have for the resurrection narrative?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is really the thinking that came from St Paul when he said if we don't have the resurrection then our teaching is in vain. 1 Corinthians 15:14

When considering St Paul's words we need to consider the context. For example earlier in the same chapter, Paul is saying Jesus had appeared to him as He appeared to all the apostles.

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1 Corinthians 15:7-8

However we know that Paul never saw Jesus. He heard Jesus speaking to Him on the road to Damascus Acts 9:1-7. This was his conversion experience.

This is an important clue that Paul is not speaking about the physically resurrected Christ but something else. So what else could Paul be referring to?

Abdu'l-Baha decribes Christs' resurrection as follows:


"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. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. 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, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.


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, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it."

For Christians it is clearly hard to let go of the idea of a physically resurrected Christ and to see a deeper symbolic meaning instead.

Once we are prepared to accept that this might be true, instead of a physical resurrection, then we can further investigate including what Jesus said about HIs resurrection and the appearances as recorded in the Gospels and Acts.

Physical resurrection makes more sense than just spiritual. It's very important. Without it, there is no Christianity.

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. 41 The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.

42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. 43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies. ~1 Corinthians 15:40-44​

When you don't have the resurrection of Christ in body, Christians who rise to heaven can't transform into their heavenly bodies because they (mainstream-many) believe that they will be taken up in their physical bodies. Their earthly bodies (like jesus) will die (as his Crucifixion) and be transformed to heavenly bodies. If you rose just in spirit, there is nothing to transform.

It's not just spiritual. That, to me, is so new age. I am not saying these things are facts. People believe whatever they choose. I'm just saying scripture does say he lived, died, and rose in flesh and transformed to spirit because earthly flesh cannot be in the kingdom of heaven.

This is a huge reason why Muslims, for example, can see the spiritual nature of christ but they know that they are not christians nor have the spirit of christ within because to do that you have to "be crucified in christ" as in galations.

Abdu'l-Baha is not one of the authors of the bible and he is not in the christian faith. So, you can't use that to support your statement because it is bias because of your beliefs compared to theirs. It is like using Muhammad's view of jesus as valid as if I were Muslim, I have authority to speak for scripture. I don't.

I only do because I have experienced it. If I had not became Catholic, I can't defend and say "christ is within" when I would not have been of that faith specifically to claim christ is any more than what the bible says he is not Abdu'l-Baha, Muhammad, or anyone else.

Without the physical resurrection, there is no resurrection in christ for christians. Unfortunately, a log of god-believers doesn't matter separate spiritual from physical. Why, I have no clue. The only Christians I know who don't are Catholics and Catholics are the ones who put the Bible together; so, I'd lean towards them not an outside party.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Purification of course.
Purification of mind and body.

It could be reasonably argued that John the Baptist directing people to purify their souls to recognise the Messiah. He baptised with water, and water is a symbol of purity.

My point is that Christ and the other teachers of the major world religions were outstanding individuals who revealed a message from an unknowable essence called God that so utterly transformed the lives of people who were receptive to such teachings that a new civilisation arose. It may be that to arrive at such a state is unattainable in this world except for those select few. If it were otherwise why have we not seen more of such souls?

 

[allfoak]

It could be reasonably argued that John the Baptist directing people to purify their souls to recognise the Messiah. He baptised with water, and water is a symbol of purity.

My point is that Christ and the other teachers of the major world religions were outstanding individuals who revealed a message from an unknowable essence called God that so utterly transformed the lives of people who were receptive to such teachings that a new civilisation arose. It may be that to arrive at such a state is unattainable in this world except for those select few. If it were otherwise why have we not seen more of such souls?

Jesus was the first born.
If there have been others since I am unaware.
I do know if it hasn't happened yet, it is on the verge of happening.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Physical resurrection makes more sense than just spiritual. It's very important. Without it, there is no Christianity.

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. 41 The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.

42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. 43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies. ~1 Corinthians 15:40-44​

When you don't have the resurrection of Christ in body, Christians who rise to heaven can't transform into their heavenly bodies because they (mainstream-many) believe that they will be taken up in their physical bodies. Their earthly bodies (like jesus) will die (as his Crucifixion) and be transformed to heavenly bodies. If you rose just in spirit, there is nothing to transform.

It's not just spiritual. That, to me, is so new age. I am not saying these things are facts. People believe whatever they choose. I'm just saying scripture does say he lived, died, and rose in flesh and transformed to spirit because earthly flesh cannot be in the kingdom of heaven.

This is a huge reason why Muslims, for example, can see the spiritual nature of christ but they know that they are not christians nor have the spirit of christ within because to do that you have to "be crucified in christ" as in galations.

Abdu'l-Baha is not one of the authors of the bible and he is not in the christian faith. So, you can't use that to support your statement because it is bias because of your beliefs compared to theirs. It is like using Muhammad's view of jesus as valid as if I were Muslim, I have authority to speak for scripture. I don't.

I only do because I have experienced it. If I had not became Catholic, I can't defend and say "christ is within" when I would not have been of that faith specifically to claim christ is any more than what the bible says he is not Abdu'l-Baha, Muhammad, or anyone else.

Without the physical resurrection, there is no resurrection in christ for christians. Unfortunately, a log of god-believers doesn't matter separate spiritual from physical. Why, I have no clue. The only Christians I know who don't are Catholics and Catholics are the ones who put the Bible together; so, I'd lean towards them not an outside party.

I can see you have very strong beliefs about a physical resurrection. You write with such passion!

I included the words of Abdu'l-Baha because he provided a simple and clear explanation. I wasn't expecting you to recognise his words as the same as the bible.

You say that a spiritual resurrection is new age. I would suggest its just viewing scripture in the light of reason and science. it was a hard road for the church to admit Galileo was right. He questioned firmly held beliefs by the church for over a thousand years. He was put under house arrest. It was only in recent times that the Catholic Church pardoned him.

What about the world being literally created 6,000 years ago. Is that new age to see these verses in genesis as symbolic?

As clearly stated Paul never saw the resurrected Christ but he framed the mystical experience He had in these terms.

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth"

Lets consider the words of Jesus when He spoke of His resurrection Matthew 12:38-40

"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

There's no comparison between Jesus and Jonas. But there is between Jonas and Jesus' disciples who really were hard to teach and struggled with their faith, became depressed and lifeless after He died, but were so transformed spiritually by His message at Pentacost they would spread the gospel far and wide. This is the miracle of Jonas.

 

[allfoak]

I always wondered why Santa Clause can't be real, true, and ethical to grown ups just as it is for children.

If there is nothing with it, why do they need to grow up?

Have you seen Drop Dead Fred?

She got over that "Since I am an adult, I can't have imaginary friends" and made friends with Fred. It was a graduation of being an adult and having believing in things unproven too. If you haven't seen the movie, it's cute and corny. Six Sense is another example but Cole wasn't an adult during the movie. If he was and the same thing happened, I wonder if he would denied it.

Yes I am familiar with Drop Dead Fred.