The Resurrection of Jesus: Non-Literal Interpretations

[uumckk16]

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.

I'm sorry...I don't understand what you're trying to say Were you responding to the OP or to my latest post?

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

The "evaporation" theory? Oh, my friend was kidding...but that's interesting that there were people who believed it, thanks for that historical tidbit!

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).

The place doesn't yet exist? I must have missed that...When it does exist, will it be a physical place? I suppose so since we will all be physically resurrected from death, right?

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.

Okay, I can understand your point about "now." I guess I just can't quite figure out what Christ's resurrection and ascension could mean in that context, though. Presumably since there were eyewitnesses it was something tangible enough that we could comprehend it. So Christ woke from death, thus returning to his physical body, and then that physical body ascended to Heaven, right? But what exactly does that mean? How did he go from being a physical being within time and space to one outside of time and space? Did he literally rise into the sky? Where, physically, did his body go? I'm sorry, I'm honestly trying to understand, thanks for bearing with me

 

[Super Universe]

If you own a Dodge and drive it for many, many, years, does it become you? Or is it still a vehicle, a temporary thing that is known to wear out and fail?

What human body has ever lived forever? Why do you think that this frail form is something that God would or should put forth all of His efforts and create a universe for?

Christ bestowed upon the earth in human form to complete His required bestowal mission. Upon finishing it His spirit separated from the body and He ascended, not to heaven, but to a higher dimension where He works now as God's representative in the lower dimensions.

As the Son of God, Christ assists God's children (humans) with their ascendance and He controls the door to the higher dimensions that lead toward heaven.

Open your mind then go back and read the New Testament and you will begin to see that this is what He is saying.

 

[uumckk16]

If you own a Dodge and drive it for many, many, years, does it become you? Or is it still a vehicle, a temporary thing that is known to wear out and fail?

What human body has ever lived forever? Why do you think that this frail form is something that God would or should put forth all of His efforts and create a universe for?

Christ bestowed upon the earth in human form to complete His required bestowal mission. Upon finishing it His spirit separated from the body and He ascended, not to heaven, but to a higher dimension where He works now as God's representative in the lower dimensions.

As the Son of God, Christ assists God's children (humans) with their ascendance and He controls the door to the higher dimensions that lead toward heaven.

Open your mind then go back and read the New Testament and you will begin to see that this is what He is saying.

Thanks for that perspective! Do you believe there are any others at this "higher dimension"? You distinguish it from Heaven; is Heaven the "highest dimension"? How do normal people who aren't the Son of God reach these higher dimensions; through belief in Christ, or by following Christ, or...?

 

[Super Universe]

There are many billions of other beings who have already ascended to the higher dimensions. There they do work for the universe.

As energy flows outward from God this energy creates space/time. As this energy spreads it's frequency slows yet time speeds up. At the outer edges of this energies reach is the 3rd dimension where the frequency of this energy is slow but time is very fast compared to the other dimensions.

There is some overlap of the dimensions. Think of tuning in a radio station, one numbered 610 becomes less understandable as you move the dial to 611, then 612, and maybe at 613 it's nothing but static. This explains why sometimes we experience ghosts who are actually beings trapped in the 4th dimension.

The general belief is that there are eleven major dimensions and then heaven. Some count heaven as #12 but it is my opinion that heaven is not a dimension because it is not a frequency of space/time as all the others are. Heaven is non-space/time.

How do normal people reach these higher dimensions? About 99% don't. They don't because they are not meant to. They are not provided with revelation that would lift the veil of selfishness that is clouding their view of the universe.

150,000 people die each day on the earth, now couple that with the fact that in the higher dimensions time is slower and you will realize that everyone who has died in the last 1,000 years (over 54 billion people) would essentially arrive all in the same day in a higher dimension. Then consider how many other planets with sentient life exist out there (billions?) and you will soon understand why the universe is simply not able to handle the great numbers if everyone ascended.

But great change is coming. There is a schedule written before the beginning and nothing can alter it. The earth is going to move into a higher dimension. The universe is now dedicating a great deal of energy and many lightworkers in an effort to help the 3rd dimensional humans to move with the earth into the 4th dimension but honestly it's not looking good.

 

[UnityNow101]

To SuperUniverse: Where do you get your beliefs from? It is a rather interesting take on Heaven and other dimensions.

 

[Super Universe]

I certainly don't have everything figured out. There is much more to understand but my sources are:

The Bible
The Urantia Book
Logic (based on probability)
Wingmakers
Direct Revelation

 

[yuvgotmel]

To Super Universe:

I have ran out of frubals, otherwise, I'd give you 5 stars for all your posts!

Thanx for the update (from Post #24). And too, thanks for the information. You mentioned a few things that I had not realized.

Thanx so much.

 

[may]

it was Jehovah God the Almighty , who ressurrected Jesus to immortal life in heaven, Jesus did not resurrect himself ,but his Father Jehovah resurrected him.

(Acts 3:15) whereas YOU killed the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses.​

(Romans 4:24) but also for the sake of us to whom it is destined to be counted, because we believe on him who raised Jesus our Lord up from the dead.​

(1 Peter 1:21) who through him are believers in God, the one who raised him up from the dead and gave him glory; so that YOUR faith and hope might be in God.
(Acts 2:32) This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses.
let it be known to all of YOU and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·rene´, whom YOU impaled but whom God raised up from the dead, by this one does this man stand here sound in front of YOUActs 4;10

(Acts 2:24) But God resurrected him by loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to continue to be held fast by it.​

(Acts 5:30) The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake.

(Acts 13:30) But God raised him up from the dead;​

 

[lilithu]

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!

Hi uumckk, namaste.

I have posted a non-literal interpretation of the ressurection before that was taught to me by a Catholic professor. I can either PM you about it or we can discuss it in a another forum. (Even tho this was taught to me by a Christian I don't think it would be appropriate for me to post it here.) But either way, it will probably be a few days before I have the time to do it justice. PM me if you don't hear from me.

 

[love]

Jesus Christ was not of this dimension. He had to become flesh that He could look men in the eye and tell them what their hearts revealed to Him. He showed His outrage at the Temple becoming a den of thiefs. When He laid His hands on someone their physical ailments were gone. But He was here on a higher mission.To tell the people of the earth that His kingdom is not of this world. His badly beaten corpse was taken to a tomb and guarded by Roman soldiers. He had no more need for His physical body which by nature is doomed for death, but no one looked upon His physical remains. His first encounter with His disiples He told them not to touch Him that He had not ascended to The Father. Was He in a physical body then?

 

[uumckk16]

Thanks for the explanation, Super Universe. Interesting!

Thanks for your input, May

Hi uumckk, namaste.

I have posted a non-literal interpretation of the ressurection before that was taught to me by a Catholic professor. I can either PM you about it or we can discuss it in a another forum. (Even tho this was taught to me by a Christian I don't think it would be appropriate for me to post it here.) But either way, it will probably be a few days before I have the time to do it justice. PM me if you don't hear from me.

That would be great, lilithu! Thanks so much! A PM would work, unless you want to start a thread about it somewhere. If you're too busy at the moment, don't worry about it, but I'd love to hear it sometime!

He had no more need for His physical body which by nature is doomed for death, but no one looked upon His physical remains. His first encounter with His disiples He told them not to touch Him that He had not ascended to The Father. Was He in a physical body then?

I'm confused by your last few sentences. "He had no more need for His physical body...but no one looked upon His physical remains." Huh? Sorry, I just don't understand the transitions between thoughts here. As for your final question, I don't know, I'm asking you!

 

[James the Persian]

The "evaporation" theory? Oh, my friend was kidding...but that's interesting that there were people who believed it, thanks for that historical tidbit!

Yes, they existed. They were one of those groups that was somewhat anti-materialist and believed that matter was too crude/evil for heaven. Sort of like a mild form of docetism.

The place doesn't yet exist? I must have missed that...When it does exist, will it be a physical place? I suppose so since we will all be physically resurrected from death, right?

No. The 'place' doesn't yet exist. I should have been a little more careful with the apostrophes. Neither heaven nor hell are places in our view, but experiences of the same inescapable love of God. To paraphrase St. Isaac the Syrian, 'those in hell are scourged by love'. They aren't separate places at all. After death we only have a foretaste because we are disincarnate (the idea of a separate immortal soul is heresy for us - we are the body to a great extent) and so heaven and hell, as such, cannot exist until the general resurrection in the body. However, the heaven I speak of in these terms and the heaven which is the 'dwelling place' of God are not the same thing. Does that help?

Okay, I can understand your point about "now." I guess I just can't quite figure out what Christ's resurrection and ascension could mean in that context, though. Presumably since there were eyewitnesses it was something tangible enough that we could comprehend it. So Christ woke from death, thus returning to his physical body, and then that physical body ascended to Heaven, right? But what exactly does that mean? How did he go from being a physical being within time and space to one outside of time and space? Did he literally rise into the sky? Where, physically, did his body go? I'm sorry, I'm honestly trying to understand, thanks for bearing with me

Mystery. The Orthodox Church is a mystical Church and we don't claim to know all the answers. All we know is that Christ is and remains both fully God and fully man because it is by His consubstantiality with both God and man that the effects of the Fall were undone. Anything fourther than this is simply left as Mystery. We don't tend to make speculation about things not revealed to us and we aren't afraid to admit that we don't know something. Theology is prayer, experience and revelation, for us, not philosophising about God (though I, peronally, have been known to indulge in this - but then I am a western convert).

James

 

[Doodlebug02]

The only true interpretation of the resurrection is that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead.

 

[uumckk16]

Yes, they existed. They were one of those groups that was somewhat anti-materialist and believed that matter was too crude/evil for heaven. Sort of like a mild form of docetism.

No. The 'place' doesn't yet exist. I should have been a little more careful with the apostrophes. Neither heaven nor hell are places in our view, but experiences of the same inescapable love of God. To paraphrase St. Isaac the Syrian, 'those in hell are scourged by love'. They aren't separate places at all. After death we only have a foretaste because we are disincarnate (the idea of a separate immortal soul is heresy for us - we are the body to a great extent) and so heaven and hell, as such, cannot exist until the general resurrection in the body. However, the heaven I speak of in these terms and the heaven which is the 'dwelling place' of God are not the same thing. Does that help?

Mystery. The Orthodox Church is a mystical Church and we don't claim to know all the answers. All we know is that Christ is and remains both fully God and fully man because it is by His consubstantiality with both God and man that the effects of the Fall were undone. Anything fourther than this is simply left as Mystery. We don't tend to make speculation about things not revealed to us and we aren't afraid to admit that we don't know something. Theology is prayer, experience and revelation, for us, not philosophising about God (though I, peronally, have been known to indulge in this - but then I am a western convert).

James

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to me, James! I think I understand now

 

[lilithu]

Hi again uumckk, namaste.

Well since I see several non-Christians posting their views in this thread, I guess I will as well. Let me state upfront that this interpretation of the ressurection was told to me by a Catholic professor at a Catholic university, but I know that it's not standard Catholic doctrine. I like it - works for me - but I'm not going to defend it here as that would require that I argue with Christians in their own forum. So I put it forth. Say what you will.

According to my liberation theology prof:

God is both immanent (Holy Spirit) and transcendant (Father).
Logos/the Word of God existed since the beginning.
Jesus was fully human, just like the rest of us. He was divine only to the same extent that we all have divinity (the Spirit) within us.
However, Jesus so perfectly lived his life in accord with God's word/will that he was singularly exceptional.

From this viewpoint, the immanent divinity that is the Spirit moving within humanity strives to meet the transcendant divinity that is known as the Father. This movement/striving happens continually, but only in Jesus was it attained.

Jesus died because the authorities executed him for following God's will instead of theirs, not to save us from our sins.
God was so moved by Jesus' devotion and the magnitude of this injustice that God ressurected Jesus as the Christ, the living Logos.
The way that this was done - and this is the non-literal part - is that Jesus' followers were so moved by Jesus' example that they were transformed by the experience. The Spirit worked within them. Such that Christ lived in their hearts.

It's important to get this clear:
Logos/word of God existed since the beginning.
Jesus was a human who existed from the time he was born until the time he died. Period.
Christ came into being only after the ressurection.
Christ is who Jesus was, the perfect embodiment of God's word/Logos, now living in the hearts of his followers.

As the story of Jesus life spread, Christ came to live in the hearts of more and more followers.

uumckk, I will answers question of clarification from you to the best that I am able. Hope this helps.

 

[James the Persian]

Hi again uumckk, namaste.

Well since I see several non-Christians posting their views in this thread, I guess I will as well. Let me state upfront that this interpretation of the ressurection was told to me by a Catholic professor at a Catholic university, but I know that it's not standard Catholic doctrine. I like it - works for me - but I'm not going to defend it here as that would require that I argue with Christians in their own forum. So I put it forth. Say what you will.

According to my liberation theology prof:

God is both immanent (Holy Spirit) and transcendant (Father).
Logos/the Word of God existed since the beginning.
Jesus was fully human, just like the rest of us. He was divine only to the same extent that we all have divinity within us.
However, Jesus so perfectly lived his life in accord with God's word/will that he was singularly exceptional.
Jesus died because the authorities executed him for following God's will instead of theirs, not to save us from our sins.
God was so moved by Jesus' devotion and the magnitude of this injustice that God ressurected Jesus as the Christ, the living Logos.
The way that this was done - and this is the non-literal part - is that Jesus' followers were so moved by Jesus' example that they were transformed by the experience. The Spirit worked within them. Such that Christ lived in their hearts.

It's important to get this clear:
Logos/word of God existed since the beginning.
Jesus was a human who existed from the time he was born until the time he died. Period.
Christ came into being only after the ressurection.
Christ is who Jesus was, the perfect embodiment of God's word/Logos, now living in the hearts of his followers.

As the story of Jesus life spread, Christ came to live in the hearts of more and more followers.

uumckk, I will answers question of clarification from you to the best that I am able. Hope this helps.

That's not just 'not standard doctrine', it's the condemned heresy of Adoptionism, one version of which had Jesus adopted as God's Son at His Resurrection (the more common point in time for the adoption being His baptism). I'm shocked that a Roman Catholic theology professor is free to teach such things in an RC university, but then if he was teaching liberation thoeology, I guess anything's possible. I feel a question for the RCs here coming on - this is the second time in a couple of days that I've heard of people being free to preach heresy in the RCC.

James

 

[lilithu]

That's not just 'not standard doctrine', it's the condemned heresy of Adoptionism, one version of which had Jesus adopted as God's Son at His Resurrection (the more common point in time for the adoption being His baptism).

I think the "Adoption" (as you call it) happened at the point where God said of Jesus, "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased." That was right after his baptism, wasn't it?

It's cool how you have a name for every heresy, James. There are so many.

I'm shocked that a Roman Catholic theology professor is free to teach such things in an RC university, but then if he was teaching liberation thoeology, I guess anything's possible.

I feel a question for the RCs here coming on - this is the second time in a couple of days that I've heard of people being free to preach heresy in the RCC.

He wasn't preaching in a church. He was teaching in a university.

 

[James the Persian]

I think the "Adoption" (as you call it) happened at the point where God said of Jesus, "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased." That was right after his baptism, wasn't it?

That's the most common version of the heresy, yes. There also were some who saw the adoption as happening when God resurrected Him from the dead.

It's cool how you have a name for every heresy, James. There are so many.

Heresiology is an interest of mine and has been for years. I don't think I know all of them, though, mostly just the major ones. I'm hoping to get a list of most along with brief descriptions up in the articles section at some point.

He wasn't preaching in a church. He was teaching in a university.

A distinction that should be irrelevant, especially if the university was run by the RCC. The canons call for the deposition of clergy who preach heresy and the excommunication of lay folk, they don't mention where the preaching should occur. It is impossible that any RC priest or lay theologian could be unaware that such beliefs are condemned heresies and, as such, he should have been disciplined by the church. I can't imagine a similar situation going by without protest in the Orthodox Church.

James

 

[lilithu]

A distinction that should be irrelevant, especially if the university was run by the RCC. The canons call for the deposition of clergy who preach heresy and the excommunication of lay folk, they don't mention where the preaching should occur. It is impossible that any RC priest or lay theologian could be unaware that such beliefs are condemned heresies and, as such, he should have been disciplined by the church. I can't imagine a similar situation going by without protest in the Orthodox Church.

I have no problem with you believing that all diverging views are "heresies." Just leave my beloved professor and university alone. My tolerance does not extend to people imposing their views on others, regardless of whether they share similar labels.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have no problem with you believing that all diverging views are "heresies." Just leave my beloved professor and university alone. My tolerance does not extend to people imposing their views on others, regardless of whether they share similar labels.

That's why I love being a scholar.

You can't call me a hairy-tick!