The Resurrection of Jesus

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by Howard509

A spiritual being could act on sense perception so that you could even touch the wounds in his side. Seeing and touching are electrical waves in the mind.

So now you are asseverating not only Luke a dirty liar, but the Christ? By the way, can I petition you to change the title of this topic to "Lies About a Resurrection"? It will be more accurately descriptive.

I do not believe in Christianity in the usual way we mean "believe." ... As Borg writes, "Most simply, ‘to believe' meant ‘to love.' Indeed, the English words ‘believe' and ‘belove' are related. What we believe is what we belove. Faith is about beloving God."

This Mr. Ford is saying: I do not believe these things to be true; I believe them to be lies, and I love them.

To which the Revelator may be said to reply: "[Outside the city of God is] whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" (Rev xii.15b).

If he is the lover of good he claims himself, then neither can he love a lie. I'll say the same to you.

[Howard509]

Again, there is metaphorical narrative throughout the Bible. Is Adam and Eve a "lie"?

[Howard509]

Since near-death experiences are common, as are out of body experiences that people have near death, it isn't hard to believe that the apostles witnessed Christ beyond death in some form. I believe the burden of proof is on those who claim that nothing happened at all to warrant the apostles' belief in the resurrection.

This first critical study of contemporary visions of Jesus offers the intriguing accounts of thirty people, most of them ordinary men and women without prior or subsequent experiences of this kind, who remain mystified about their encounters. Wiebe recounts each vision in vivid detail, exploring why these individuals believe their visions were of Jesus, and why they typically believe them to be objective happenings, rather than hallucinations or dreams. He regards the occurrences from perspectives as diverse as biblical scholarship and parapsychology, concluding that they may well represent genuine religious experiences of a mystical character. The fascinating nature of these visions and Wiebe's thoughtful, evenhanded approach to each report add up to a book that will be provocative reading for skeptics and the faithful alike.
http://oup.com/us/catalog/general/su...=9780195126693

Modern day visionaries of Jesus report being able to touch him.

[keith johnson]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

So now you are asseverating not only Luke a dirty liar, but the Christ? By the way, can I petition you to change the title of this topic to "Lies About a Resurrection"? It will be more accurately descriptive.


This Mr. Ford is saying: I do not believe these things to be true; I believe them to be lies, and I love them.

To which the Revelator may be said to reply: "[Outside the city of God is] whosoever loveth and maketh a lie" (Rev xii.15b).

If he is the lover of good he claims himself, then neither can he love a lie. I'll say the same to you.

Porter, your reading of Howard's comments is remarkably uncharitable. He is not claiming that ANYONE is lying. He is suggesting that MAYBE Christ's corpse didn't revivify during the Resurrection. he explicitly says that Jesus DID rise, he is just open to possibilities as to what form jesus' resurrection took place. You can disagree with his points but your rhetoric poison's the discussion when it makes obviously misleading accusations about the integrity of his position.

Just stop it.

your friend
Keith

[Howard509]

i've thought that maybe the resurrection of jesus was something only his disciples could experience, as if they all had entered a higher state of consciousness. jesus could have appeared to pilate but chose not to, so it might be something that only the apostles were able to experience.

[keith johnson]

Originally Posted by Howard509

i've thought that maybe the resurrection of jesus was something only his disciples could experience, as if they all had entered a higher state of consciousness. jesus could have appeared to pilate but chose not to, so it might be something that only the apostles were able to experience.

A bit of support for this idea of yours: when the disciples were walking with the Risen Lord on the road to Emmaus they didn't recognize him until he broke the bread. They would have recognized him had he been the previous alive corpse of Jesus. It seems to me that the problem folks like Porter have with your theory is that they assume that if the appearance of the risen Jesus was "just" a spiritual experience it was a delusion of some sort. But why on earth think that? If the disciples were experiencing a HIGHER state of consciousness then they were CONSCIOUS of something that was real, not a fantasy. Paul writes about our resurrecting into spiritual bodies. What exactly IS a spiritual body? Why are some Christians so convinced that they can out the things of God into a nice container?

your friend
Keith

[Porter Doran]

Come, come, it's a very different thing to say the risen body of Jesus is supernatural (it is*) and to say that there was "no empty tomb", that (we seem in this thread to have ranged) Jesus worked no miracles, could not have ascended because of "outer space", and -- most importantly of all -- to accuse the Evangelists of fabrication -- all of which Howard has done.


* Paul calls it the following: "He will change our vile bodies into the fashion of his glorious body." For some of the cool things he can do with it, take a look at Revelation chapter one, verses 13 to 16.

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by keith johnson

Porter, your reading of Howard's comments is remarkably uncharitable. He is not claiming that ANYONE is lying. He is suggesting that MAYBE Christ's corpse didn't revivify during the Resurrection. he explicitly says that Jesus DID rise, he is just open to possibilities as to what form jesus' resurrection took place. You can disagree with his points but your rhetoric poison's the discussion when it makes obviously misleading accusations about the integrity of his position.

Just stop it.

your friend
Keith

Mr. Johnson, please note that I quoted in my post a specific post of Howard's. And now you are replying, not to that specific post, but with some generalized sketch of what you feel to be Howard's overall picture of the Resurrection. You do his specific post, with its specific quote of a Mr. Ford discussing specific ideas of Dr. Borg's, a disfavor. I won't requote; please apply to the thread. And, yes, Borg-Ford-Howard is clearly proposing that the Evangelists lied and yet can be loved. I won't stop rejecting such ( a ) libel of them, ( b ) immoral connivance at truth.

[keith johnson]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Mr. Johnson, please note that I quoted in my post a specific post of Howard's. And now you are replying, not to that specific post, but with some generalized sketch of what you feel to be Howard's overall picture of the Resurrection. You do his specific post, with its specific quote of a Mr. Ford discussing specific ideas of Dr. Borg's, a disfavor. I won't requote; please apply to the thread. And, yes, Borg-Ford-Howard is clearly proposing that the Evangelists lied and yet can be loved. I won't stop rejecting such ( a ) libel of them, ( b ) immoral connivance at truth.

Hi Mr Doran: If you feel the need for such formality I will refrain from calling you by your 1st name, but I am pretty comfortable if you call me Keith. I just read thread in its entirety (rather quickly to be sure so perhaps not carefully enough) and I just don't see that Howard is "clearly proposing" what you say. Here is what it seems to me he is saying:

1. The Resurrection was not a delusion or a made up thing, it really happened. Howard takes this as a matter of faith

2. Whether or not jesus' physical body actually resuscitated or instead Jesus rose again in a spiritual form that appeared to the disciples, either way this doesn't conflict with the Resurrection being real.

3. Howard accepts as a possibly maybe some of the details of the various Gospel accounts were added later by various Christians and that maybe they didn't really happen. Now I'd say that IF the people who (possibly) added those (possibly added) claims didn't believe they really happened then THEY were lying. But this doesn't mean that Howard is endorsing a view that says we can properly love the lie. What Howard loves is the actually Risen Lord, he just doesn't think that the specific details about HOW jesus really rose is essential. As a matter of fact, Howard specifically said HE believes that jesus physically rose from the dead, it's just that if such didn't happen this would not undermine the idea that the Resurrection was real.

I am trying to be fair and read your comments as charitably as possible Mr. Duran, but it doesn't seem to me that you were accurately interpreting his argument nor responding TO his argument. That's all I'm saying.

your friend
keith

[Porter Doran]

You seem intent on making this about Howard personally. I like the man! and I know what it is to contract an enthusiasm from a new book. But if we were to make these debate-threads about personalities, we would do despite to Truth.

Have you yet read this? In it, Ford-Borg-Howard is slandering not only the Evangelists, but about a hundred generations of believers.

Again, mentioning as much at a dinner-table may be unkind or impolitic, but surely at least in a debate-thread such as this Pure Idea must be championed, or when will she at all?

[keith johnson]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

You seem intent on making this about Howard personally. I like the man! and I know what it is to contract an enthusiasm from a new book. But if we were to make these debate-threads about personalities, we would do despite to Truth.

Have you yet read this? In it, Ford-Borg-Howard is slandering not only the Evangelists, but about a hundred generations of believers.

Again, mentioning as much at a dinner-table may be unkind or impolitic, but surely at least in a debate-thread such as this Pure Idea must be championed, or when will she at all?

I read what Howard wrote and all I can say is that I don't see that HE was saying what you attribute to him--I thought I dispassionately explained what I took him to be saying. I'm not trying to make anything personal at all.

your friend
keith

[Howard509]

Marcus Borg and the Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK5N-t9f8io

The purpose of the historical-metaphorical approach is not to deny the literal factuality of the Bible but to find its meaning independent of literal factuality. By foscusing only on whether a story literally occcured or not, one misses its deeper meaning. For the early church fathers, it was often the more-than-literal meaning of Scripture that mattered most. Throughout the Bible, one finds either purely metaphorical narrative or history told in a symbolic way. For Borg and I, the question isn't whether or not the resurrection actually happened, because it did, but whether the resurrection accounts are meant to be interpreted literally or metaphorically. And one can find profound truth to them independent of their literal factuality.

[Porter Doran]

(After you come to tell us some personal news: )

"No, I'm not saying you're lying -- I'm saying let's evaluate whether it matters if Howard is lying; 'cause I mean, if he is lying there's probably something in his words we can enjoy anyway, if we're really Howard fans around here."

Tell me that isn't insulting and condescending.

Oh and anyway this thread is full of more than evasive jargon like the previous post; it comprises denials and dismissals in plain language; anyone who doubts me please read it again.

[keith johnson]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

(After you come to tell us some personal news: )

"No, I'm not saying you're lying -- I'm saying let's evaluate whether it matters if Howard is lying; 'cause I mean, if he is lying there's probably something in his words we can enjoy anyway, if we're really Howard fans around here."

Tell me that isn't insulting and condescending.

Oh and anyway this thread is full of more than evasive jargon like the previous post; it comprises denials and dismissals in plain language; anyone who doubts me please read it again.

I don't know if we SHOULD continue this round and round, but my pathological need to be understood and to understand forces me to say this thing. Suppose there exists a religious document that CONTAINS a really big truth about what God has done and what God can do for us but also contains some deliberately false claims made by people who were jockeying for influence with the religion. Suppose that those who embrace the big truth will have personal spiritual experiences that will confirm to them that truth by God given faith. If that were the case then why would it not be legitimate to mine that document for those experientially testable truths while still NOT taking every word of the document as factual. It seems to me that such is what the liberal christians are doing and what the more moderate christians like howard are doing. To me this stance is markedly different from the way you are describing Howard's view. And it is markedly different from the way you are characterizing Borg too. The possibility Borg presents (from what little I read of Borg, I think he believes something like what I just said) makes it possible for certain people with certain preconceptions about science and reality to seriously consider the Gospel. If the view I presented as a "suppose this" is true that still doesn't conflict with the essential ideas of Christianity. Christ is STILL the Son, he STILL died on the cross and rose from the dead to save us from sin. he is STILL the Way, the Truth and the Life. I think Howard is saying something like I "supposed". I don't see that he is guilty of the "crime" you accuse him of. Really.

your friend
Keith

[Porter Doran]

Originally Posted by keith johnson

I don't see that he is guilty of the "crime" you accuse him of.

Again, I personally believe that contribution to an intellectual discussion can't be about personalities, like this.

[Porter Doran]

I was just reading up on theologian who calls himself a Deconstructionist. At any rate, I noticed among his bibliography a book titled After the Death of God. Mind you, I have no notion of the contents of this particular book -- but the title struck. In my opinion, really with just such casual arrogance do most of the post-modernisms replace Modernism. I would rather see a hundred generations of believers dismissed as stooges, in the good old Modern way, than sneered and soothed as "belovers". Proud and impious are these manipulations, in my opinion.

[keith johnson]

Originally Posted by Porter Doran

Again, I personally believe that contribution to an intellectual discussion can't be about personalities, like this.

Hi Mr. Doran: I think your comments HAVE been personal, I think you are not properly characterizing what Howard said. I don't think you are DELIBERATELY mischaracterizing him, mind you, but in the post you just commented on here I offered what I THINK is what Howard is saying. Could you comment on THAT? I claim that the "suppose that" I offered is (a) consistent with the basic ideas of the Christian Gospel and (b) do NOT constitute "it's a lie but since I love the lie that's OK" which is how you characterized Howard's view. Your opinion on THAT is what I'd be interested in hearing about.

your friend
Keith

[Howard509]

Mark Allan Powell is a New Testament scholar at Trinity Lutheran Seminary. Powell believes in the corporeal resurrection of Jesus and the historicity of the empty tomb. At the same time, he insists that a reasonable person can believe otherwise and have a living relationship with Christ:

First, a DISCLAIMER. I do not personally subscribe to this view. I think the argument is wrong. I believe that Jesus did physically rise from dead, that his body got up and walked out of the tomb on Easter morning. But I am going to try to describe the contrary view as convincingly as I can--in order to be fair to those who hold this position. It is significant that a number of Christian theologians hold this view and do not consider it contrary to biblical faith.

Borg, Crossan, and Spong do not deny the resurrection of Jesus. There have, of course, been people throughout history who claimed the resurrection story was simply a lie, that Jesus is dead and gone, and that’s the end of it. Borg, Crossan, and Spong do not think this.

Borg’s view at least (and I think Crossan’s) is also different from that of Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann denied the physical resurrection of Jesus as a historical event but continued to regard himself as a Christian because, he said, “Jesus continues to live in the preaching of the Church.” He was the first prominent theologian to argue that the resurrection story was “a myth,” intended to convey metaphorical truth only. (Spong often seems to follow Bultmann but his view may in fact have more in common with that of Borg and others who are a step closer to orthodoxy)

The newer development (Borg and others) is a view that agrees with Bultmann that the “empty tomb stories” are metaphorical tales, but also insists (unlike Bultmann) that Jesus really did rise from the dead and continues to live today in a real (though spiritual) sense--not just in some symbolic way (e.g., through the ongoing influence of his ideas). Bottom line: they do believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, while granting that somewhere over in Palestine, there is a skeleton of Jesus. How can this be?

Most New Testament scholars make a distinction between “the resurrection of the body” and the “resuscitation of a corpse.” With regard to Jesus, it is possible (though not necessary) to affirm the former as literal and historical, while still regarding the latter as only metaphorical.

The argument, in a nutshell, is based on the writings of Paul (which pre-date the Gospels). Paul, so it is said, does not believe that God is going to resuscitate our dead corpses at the end of time--like zombies out of some “living dead” movie. Rather, Paul believes that God will raise us up on the last day with new, spiritual bodies. Thus, it does not matter what happens to our corpses--whether they get cremated or eaten by worms. Resurrection is like creation -- in fact it is called a “new creation” -- God gives us new bodies, made from scratch.

It is against this background that Paul supposedly understands the resurrection of Jesus. Paul knows that people have been raised from the dead before (Elijah raised a widow’s son)--but all that happened in those instances was that a dead corpse was brought back to life. The person was simply restored to his (or her) original life, not given the new life that comes when God creates new spiritual bodies for us. Of course, those people eventually died again. But when Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, Paul realized that God had done something new and unprecedented. God had not just resuscitated the corpse of Jesus and restored him to his original life. The Jesus Paul beheld had a new, spiritual body, leading Paul to conclude that Christ was the “first fruits” of those who would be raised from the dead, proof positive that we--like Christ--would have eternal life. According to this argument, it would not have bothered Paul in the least if the crucified corpse of Jesus was still rotting in a tomb somewhere.

Here is what seems to be support for this argument: Paul talks often in his letters about the resurrection of Jesus, but he never once mentions the empty tomb. Paul knew Peter and the other disciples of Jesus well--surely they would have told him about the empty tomb, if what is reported in the Gospels really happened. But Paul doesn’t seem to know these stories. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul lists all of the resurrection appearances that serve as proof of the resurrection of Jesus. He is trying to garner as much evidence as he can to prove that Jesus is risen. He mentions some of the stories that we have in the Gospels: stories about Jesus appearing to his disciples, perhaps in the “upper room” or out by the Sea of Galilee or on the mountain where he gives the Great Commission. But what he does not mention is any story of Jesus appearing to people at the tomb. Why not?

The proposed answer is this: Paul wrote twenty to thirty years before the Gospels. At that time, there were no stories about Jesus body getting up and walking out of the tomb–there were no stories about how women came to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body, found the tomb empty and then met Jesus himself in the garden outside the tomb. Jesus’ own disciples–who Paul knew–did not tell Paul those stories because, in fact, nothing like that ever happened. All that really happened is the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples just like he did to Paul on the Damascus road–in a new, spiritual body. Thus, they like Paul, knew that Jesus was risen without caring about what had happened to the corpse in the tomb (if there was one). In fact, the corpse of Jesus was probably still in the tomb--or rotting away somewhere–but none of Jesus’ original disciples or Paul cared about that. They believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead with a new spiritual body–which is much more important than God simply bringing the dead body of Jesus back to life (as God did with Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter, and others). The stories about the empty tomb and the physical body of Jesus coming back to life got made up later by people who were using mythology to express a metaphorical truth.

I think this argument is wrong, but I believe it makes more sense than you allow. I can see how a reasonable person might be convinced that this is right--and yet still be a Christian. Indeed there is no reason why one cannot believe this argument and still believe in Jesus Christ as their “personal Lord and Savior” or as “the Lord of the Church.” One can believe all of the above and still have a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ as a living, risen Lord (as Borg, Crossan, and Spong all claim they do).
http://www.ericknelson.net/MG10/EInF...tionInPaul.htm