The Resurrection of Jesus: Non-Literal Interpretations

[lilithu]

That's why I love being a scholar.

You can't call me a hairy-tick!

The purpose of a university is to exchange ideas, from scholar to scholar, and from teacher to student. I consider it a great credit to the university that it allows divergent ideas to be taught. Shockingly, some of my professors aren't even Catholic.

And this professor was presenting this interpretation as one interpretation, not the gospel truth. In fact, the whole point of liberation theology is that there is no one right theology that fits everyone. Different people, because of their different life circumstances, will see God differently.

 

[James the Persian]

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.

I have no problem with either your professor or the university (I know neither). I do have an issue with the RCC which you appear to have misunderstood. I'm constantly being told that we should submit to the Pope of Rome because his governance of the Church would work so much better than what we have (and Rome doesn't believe in heresy anyway) and then I just as frequently see things like this, which proves that the Papal monarchy doesn't work better (in fact it seems to work less well), that they totally flout the canons, and that even if Rome didn't openly espouse heresy (which in our view She does, but let's suppose) then to enter communion with Her would be to enter into communion with heretics because there are large numbers of nominal RCs openly preaching/practicing heresy without any reaction from the heirarchy. Reunion, in my opinion, is as far away now as it was in 13th century, despite the unwise (and uncannonical) dropping of the anthemas.

James

 

[lilithu]

I have no problem with either your professor or the university (I know neither).

Oh, ok.

I do have an issue with the RCC which you appear to have misunderstood. I'm constantly being told that we should submit to the Pope of Rome because his governance of the Church would work so much better than what we have (and Rome doesn't believe in heresy anyway) and then I just as frequently see things like this, which proves that the Papal monarchy doesn't work better (in fact it seems to work less well), that they totally flout the canons, and that even if Rome didn't openly espouse heresy (which in our view She does, but let's suppose) then to enter communion with Her would be to enter into communion with heretics because there are large numbers of nominal RCs openly preaching/practicing heresy without any reaction from the heirarchy. Reunion, in my opinion, is as far away now as it was in 13th century, despite the unwise (and uncannonical) dropping of the anthemas.

Well, I don't know if it makes a difference but we're talking about American Catholics here. And in the U.S. there is a strong undercurrent of anti-authoritarianism/self-reliance that has existed since Colonial days and was reinforced by the expansion westward (the "Wild" west) and colors everything and everyone. So that even tho Catholics in the U.S. are as a whole more deferential to a centralized authority, relatively speaking compared to other denominations, they are still as a whole more "self-reliant" than in other parts of the world.

It is no co-incidence that UU, which is on the extreme end of self-reliance religion-wise, and people like Ralph Waldo Emerson arose here.

 

[uumckk16]

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.

Thanks for posting this, lilithu! Sorry it's taken me a few days to get around to responding...I was pondering

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.

Love this.

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.

Meaning Jesus is the only person who has ever achieved it? What would your professor say concerning other major figures, namely Buddha?

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.

So God resurrected Jesus...within Jesus' followers?

Okay, I can see that. But what does your professor make of Paul's vision of Christ which caused him to convert? As far as i know he was not a follower before he saw Christ, and according to his own account it was a pretty literal experience; I suppose one could argue over what form Christ was in, but the point is Paul claimed to have seen him.

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.

So Christ lives only within the hearts of Jesus' followers? Christ is not a presence within all - only those who have accepted him into their heart? What does this imply for salvation?

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

Hehe, sorry for all the questions And I realize you're speaking for your professor and so answering may be difficult. I'm just curious, as usual Thanks again!

 

[lilithu]

Meaning Jesus is the only person who has ever achieved it? What would your professor say concerning other major figures, namely Buddha?

Yeah, I had trouble with that too. But keep in mind, my professor is a Christian (even if he is a heretic ). You asked for a Christian point of view, right?

So God resurrected Jesus...within Jesus' followers?

No. Jesus is a man who died. God resurrected Christ within the hearts of Jesus' followers. For them Jesus' continued presence was so real that they perceived him as existing even after his death. But objectively/literally speaking, it was not a physical resurrection. A non-believer would not have perceived His presence.

Okay, I can see that. But what does your professor make of Paul's vision of Christ which caused him to convert? As far as i know he was not a follower before he saw Christ, and according to his own account it was a pretty literal experience; I suppose one could argue over what form Christ was in, but the point is Paul claimed to have seen him.

He did see him, but only subjectively. A non-convert would have been looking at the exact same space and not seen anything. I know Paul says that seeing Christ caused him to convert and I'm saying that his conversion caused him to see Christ, and that's confusing. What I would say is that something happened to Paul (or Saul rather) on the road to Damascus, something life changing that opened his heart to Christ such that he could see Him.

Remember that Christ is the Logos/the Word of God. So seeing Christ requires accepting the word of God (ie - the message that Jesus taught). It's not just about physically seeing an entity.

So Christ lives only within the hearts of Jesus' followers? Christ is not a presence within all - only those who have accepted him into their heart? What does this imply for salvation?

Maybe Christ lives in everyone's heart but only Christians can feel Him. I dunno.

As I said, my professor is a Christian. I don't think that he thinks non-Christians are damned. I think he simply does not feel compelled to answer how the rest of us are saved. And that's fine with me. Wanting an explanation that saves everyone is a UU thing.

 

[uumckk16]

Yeah, I had trouble with that too. But keep in mind, my professor is a Christian (even if he is a heretic ). You asked for a Christian point of view, right?

I suppose I can see that, since he is a Christian, although I think he could still be a Christian while affirming that others, such as Buddha, may have achieved what Jesus did. I understand though.

No. Jesus is a man who died. God resurrected Christ within the hearts of Jesus' followers.

Ack, sorry. I meant Christ.

For them Jesus' continued presence was so real that they perceived him as existing even after his death. But objectively/literally speaking, it was not a physical resurrection. A non-believer would not have perceived His presence.

Okay. So when you say he lived in their hearts you mean he continued to exist as a presence for them...gotcha. In that case I can understand why he can be perceived only by his followers.

He did see him, but only subjectively. A non-convert would have been looking at the exact same space and not seen anything. I know Paul says that seeing Christ caused him to convert and I'm saying that his conversion caused him to see Christ, and that's confusing. What I would say is that something happened to Paul (or Saul rather) on the road to Damascus, something life changing that opened his heart to Christ such that he could see Him.

But how does your professor reconcile this with Paul's words if it contradicts what Paul says?

Remember that Christ is the Logos/the Word of God. So seeing Christ requires accepting the word of God (ie - the message that Jesus taught). It's not just about physically seeing an entity.

Okay. So Paul subconsciously accepted Jesus' message while he thought he was opposing it, then he was able to see Christ and at which point he converted?

Haha sorry, not trying to pick a fight over Paul It's just that I like most of what your professor says, this is just a bit of a stumbling block for me. Actually, I could accept as a possibility what you said earlier about Paul converting then seeing. I'm just not sure how your professor supports this scripturally since, as you said, he is a Christian.

As I said, my professor is a Christian. I don't think that he thinks non-Christians are damned. I think he simply does not feel compelled to answer how the rest of us are saved. And that's fine with me. Wanting an explanation that saves everyone is a UU thing.

Haha, could be

 

[des]

I just noticed this thread. Hmm. Anyway, yes I am quite sure that it is heresy--
not that I am much concerned. You might like Spong's book "Resurrection: Myth or Reality". He has a scenario to "explain" how the resurrection might have happened in a non-literal way. He uses Simon Peter as the key person, not that it would have to be him. And basically it roughly goes like this. The disciples are all mourning the loss of their friend and teacher, in fact are extremely upset-- this is a very tragic death and crucifixion was a very negative thing over even stoning to death. But one day they realize as they are breaking bread, something that was the last thing Jesus ever did with them, that his presence is still with them. (In fact, it may have led to various phantom visions
etc.)

I like this but I still like that it is beyond this and something like what happened with the Buddha.

But you may like Spong's book and it is very much better than my short explanation.



--des

 

[lilithu]

Okay. So when you say he lived in their hearts you mean he continued to exist as a presence for them...gotcha. In that case I can understand why he can be perceived only by his followers.

Sorry uumckk, I forgot about this thread until des resurrected it.

You might be interested in this piece I wrote after Easter.

http://www.wizdum.net/?q=node/65

 

[uumckk16]

I just noticed this thread. Hmm. Anyway, yes I am quite sure that it is heresy--
not that I am much concerned. You might like Spong's book "Resurrection: Myth or Reality". He has a scenario to "explain" how the resurrection might have happened in a non-literal way. He uses Simon Peter as the key person, not that it would have to be him. And basically it roughly goes like this. The disciples are all mourning the loss of their friend and teacher, in fact are extremely upset-- this is a very tragic death and crucifixion was a very negative thing over even stoning to death. But one day they realize as they are breaking bread, something that was the last thing Jesus ever did with them, that his presence is still with them. (In fact, it may have led to various phantom visions
etc.)

I like this but I still like that it is beyond this and something like what happened with the Buddha.

But you may like Spong's book and it is very much better than my short explanation.



--des

Thanks for the recommendation, des! I'll check it out

I think I'd agree with you in that I think it was a little more than that, but it sounds like an interesting theory.

 

[uumckk16]

Sorry uumckk, I forgot about this thread until des resurrected it.

You might be interested in this piece I wrote after Easter.

http://www.wizdum.net/?q=node/65

That's very beautiful, lilithu, thanks for sharing