The Resurrection of Jesus: Non-Literal Interpretations

[uumckk16]

I have begun to drift towards Christianity in some ways and I am curious about your interpretations of Jesus' resurrection. I am familiar with the "typical" Christian view that Jesus resurrected literally/bodily. However, I would like to hear from Christians who do not believe that Jesus' body literally rose to Heaven - how do you interpret the resurrection? Is it simply a metaphor (if so, for what)? Is it describing his spirit rising to Heaven? Is it describing an elevation in status (say, from "Jesus the man" to "Jesus the divine figure")? Or is it something else that I can't think of at the moment?

Thanks!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Just FWIW, the proper elevation in status would not be from "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus the Christ." The resurrection elevates Jesus to "Son of God."

 

[uumckk16]

Just FWIW, the proper elevation in status would not be from "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus the Christ." The resurrection elevates Jesus to "Son of God."

Sorry, that's what I meant, or rather I meant "Jesus the man" to "Jesus the divine figure." I'll change it, thanks Is the last statement your opinion on the matter?

What does FWIW mean? I've never been able to figure it out...

 

[uumckk16]

*shameless bump*

No takers?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sorry, that's what I meant, or rather I meant "Jesus the man" to "Jesus the divine figure." I'll change it, thanks Is the last statement your opinion on the matter?

What does FWIW mean? I've never been able to figure it out...

I can't add very much to this thread... I believe in the literal resurrection.

FWIW means "for what it's worth..."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It would be difficult, I think, to be a Christian and not believe in the bodily ressurection. It is one of the key fundamentals of faith. Without it the concept of Christ as a redeemer is meritless.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It would be difficult, I think, to be a Christian and not believe in the bodily ressurection. It is one of the key fundamentals of faith. Without it the concept of Christ as a redeemer is meritless.

It's not difficult if one wants to allow Christianity to thrive in a philosophical environment in which theism is dead. From this point of view, the Christ of faith that is important and not the Christ of history. It's a quite useful theology to recoincile evil to the existence of God - that God exists does not act in history, but will act after history (eg, the end of the world) for the redemption of all things.

 

[uumckk16]

It would be difficult, I think, to be a Christian and not believe in the bodily ressurection. It is one of the key fundamentals of faith. Without it the concept of Christ as a redeemer is meritless.

I know there are some Christians who do not believe it; but I see your point.

Oh well

 

[Katzpur]

Would you really mind if we moved this to the same-faith debate forum? That way those of us who do believe in a literal resurrection can join in the discussion.

 

[Willamena]

The resurrection elevates Jesus to "Son of God."

He wasn't the Son of God before then?

I can't add very much to this thread... I believe in the literal resurrection.

Ah... well... never mind.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

He wasn't the Son of God before then?

In a word, no. The Gospels were written after Jesus was hailed the Son of God by virtue of (at least what they perceived as) the resurrection of Jesus. If there had been no belief in the ressurrection, there would be no "son of God" title for Jesus. He would have done nothing to gain such a title...

EDIT:

Romans 1:1-4 ESV Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord

 

[uumckk16]

Would you really mind if we moved this to the same-faith debate forum? That way those of us who do believe in a literal resurrection can join in the discussion.

I'd rather it stayed here, because then I am allowed to post. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to exclude anyone, I was just looking for a specific perspective. I'd love to see that debate, though!

 

[Katzpur]

I'd rather it stayed here, because then I am allowed to post.

Oh, okay! Duh. Dumb idea.

 

[dbakerman76]

I've never placed much emphasis on the resurrection story as anything except a myth. For me the myth shows how someone's life can continue to have power after one dies. Jesus life has actually had more power after death than it ever did while he was alive.

 

[uumckk16]

Oh, okay! Duh. Dumb idea.

Oh no, I'm sorry! I understand what you meant. That would be an interesting debate!

I've never placed much emphasis on the resurrection story as anything except a myth. For me the myth shows how someone's life can continue to have power after one dies. Jesus life has actually had more power after death than it ever did while he was alive.

That's a good point; I've never thought of interpreting it that way. Do you therefore see the various visions/experiences of him post-death as part of this metaphor/myth?

 

[dbakerman76]

Oh no, I'm sorry! I understand what you meant. That would be an interesting debate!


That's a good point; I've never thought of interpreting it that way. Do you therefore see the various visions/experiences of him post-death as part of this metaphor/myth?

I see it as the only way the people could describe their encounters with his life.

 

[uumckk16]

I see it as the only way the people could describe their encounters with his life.

Ah, gotcha. Interesting, thanks for sharing!

 

[uumckk16]

Okay, well, I have a question then This is probably rather silly...but bear with me.

I was talking to someone a few months ago about his beliefs, and he told me he doesn't believe Heaven to be a literal, physical place, but rather, as he put it, "Just...being with God." Later I was pondering this and I wondered how the belief in a literal, bodily resurrection and ascension fit into this model of Heaven. I decided to ask him. Our conversation went something like:
Me: "So you don't believe that Heaven is a literal place?"
Him: "No."
Me: "So...where did Jesus' body go when he resurrected?"
Him: "Uh...I'd never thought of that before. He...evaporated?"

Am I missing a major piece of the story here? I don't mean this as an attack, but rather an honest questioning, because I'm sure there are better explanations out there than the one my friend was able to come up with on the spot. I might be mistaken, but I think there are some Christians on RF who do not believe Heaven to be a literal place but also believe in a physical resurrection. How can this be? Where is Jesus' body now? What am I missing?

 

[love]

The resurrection of Jesus was as physical as anyones body could be resurrected. But we all know that our body will be left behind. Christ never claimed this world to be His kingdom. He became flesh and walked among us and passed through death as a lamb under extreme torture and ridicule.His spirit was true to God and conquered death for mankind. He has the key to heaven and He is this most forgiving soul in history.

 

[James the Persian]

Okay, well, I have a question then This is probably rather silly...but bear with me.

I was talking to someone a few months ago about his beliefs, and he told me he doesn't believe Heaven to be a literal, physical place, but rather, as he put it, "Just...being with God." Later I was pondering this and I wondered how the belief in a literal, bodily resurrection and ascension fit into this model of Heaven. I decided to ask him. Our conversation went something like:
Me: "So you don't believe that Heaven is a literal place?"
Him: "No."
Me: "So...where did Jesus' body go when he resurrected?"
Him: "Uh...I'd never thought of that before. He...evaporated?"

That's an ancient heresy held to by a group called the Apellitae and condemned in the early centuries.

Am I missing a major piece of the story here? I don't mean this as an attack, but rather an honest questioning, because I'm sure there are better explanations out there than the one my friend was able to come up with on the spot. I might be mistaken, but I think there are some Christians on RF who do not believe Heaven to be a literal place but also believe in a physical resurrection. How can this be?

I may be one of those, but if so then I believe you slightly miunderstood what I meant. I've often stated here that heaven and hell aren't places. Mainly this is because in our belief, heaven and hell are different experiences of one and the same 'place' and, in fact, that place does not yet exist and will not until the bodily Resurrection. Where we go after death in the meantime is neither heaven nor hell. This heaven, that will exist for us after the Resurrection, however, and the heaven where God is are not exactly the same thing either and God is outside of creation (which is another reason why the term place doesn't really make sense).

Where is Jesus' body now? What am I missing?

Well, you're missing the fact that 'now' has no meaning in this context. Christ is ooutside of time and space. Exactly what this means we cannot possibly know because we are bound by them. All we can know is that Christ remains fully God and fully man and always will do. If this is not so then we are not saved (I invite you to follow the link in my signature if you want to understand something more of our perspective on this), which is why I find the idea of a Christianity without a literal Resurrection to be untenable - it simply wouldnn't be in any way reconcilable to the faith professed at the Ecumenical Councils, so it wouldn't be Christianity.

James