Can you be a Christian and not believe in His resurrection?

[Ruok]

I received an essay from Beliefnet by Shelby Spong, a retired Episcopal Bishop. I would link to it but it has been removed. Anyway, here is an excerpt:

<<Does anyone really think, for example, that a physical resuscitation of a body dead for three days is actually possible? Would anyone believe it if someone today made that claim? If it is not possible today, can we seriously argue that it was ever possible? Does Christianity fall unless a supernatural miracle can be established?

Before we can begin positive speculation about the meaning of Easter, we must clear the debris of literalism and the fanciful claims of pre-modern people. Let me be specific about the following parts of the resurrection story: An angel did not descend from the sky on the wings of an earthquake to roll away the stone from the door of the tomb in order to make the resurrection announcement. A deceased man did not walk out of his grave physically alive three days after his execution by crucifixion. The risen Jesus did not walk, talk, eat, teach or invite the disciples to handle his physical flesh. Jesus did not literally defy gravity and ascend to the top of a three-tiered universe. These legendary aspects of the Easter story are no longer viewed as literally true in the academic world of biblical scholarship. We are not going to make sense out of the meaning of Easter if we have to defend the accuracy of these pre-modern details.>>

Maybe my question should be what are the prerequisites to being a Christian? (And I don't mean just calling yourself a Christian, I mean what is the bare minimum belief/action as it were) I mean, the resurrection seems to me to be, oh I don't know, maybe the most fundamental element of being a Christian? If you don't believe that miracle, do any others pass the test? Do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true?

But perhaps I am mistaken, and that is why I put it to you.
-Can you be a Christian and not believe in His resurrection?
-What are the minimum beliefs/actions to be a Christian?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Well, since there's no central "Christian Standards Board" which is generally recognized as speaking with authority for the Christian religion, I don't see how you can dismiss the idea that "one is a Christian if one calls oneself a Christian" so offhandedly.

And lacking a concrete factual answer to your query, I suspect this thread is headed for Great Debates.

[Richard]

Different denominations have different beliefs. I would not consider someone to be a Christian who did not believe in the resurrection, but some would. A particular denomination may excommunicate someone who does not adhere to beliefs that they consider essential, but there is no way to stop someone from calling himself a Christian, regardless of what he believes.

[Kallisti]

I am a Gnostic Christian who does not believe in the physical resurrection, but a spiritual one of course. I think the myth of a physical resurrecton, both Jesus' and everyone's on "Judgement Day" comes from a refusal to accept physical death as part of the life cycle. It's morbid and spiritually retarded. The way to conquer death is not by coming back to Earth in the same body.

[gypsymoth3]

Kallisti, do you think the disciples merely saw Jesus ghost before he ascended?

[Iteki]

The wonderful wonderful archbishop of Sweden K.G. Hammar recently caused a little controversy here by stating that he wasn't entirely sure he belived in the literal ressurection, and that on some days, he wasn't even sure Jesus was the biblically literal son of god. Man I dig KG Hammar, his sincerity is wonderful and his compassion is huge :) He is a great example of somone doing gods work :) Keeps getting him in shit tho, the pope cancelled an audience with him a few years back over another controversy.

[Revtim]

I think Thomas Jefferson might have had beliefs along those lines; I seem to recall him writing a "new version" of the New Testament with the supernatural elements excised. Probably someone more familiar with this will jump in.

[dil]

Well, Jesus's body was in a glorified state after the resurrection, so it wasn't quite the same physical body that was put to death. More like the old body had been transformed by the process.

He appeared out of thin air in a room amongst the disciples, for example, and he instructed them not to touch him, so it wasn't exactly the same old Jesus.

I think you can be a Christian without believing in Christ's resurrection, but you'd be a very skeptical Christian. Christianity would have never gotten anywhere if hundreds of people didn't SEE Jesus after he rose from the dead. The key to "being a Christian" is believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to cover your sin and then persevering in righteousness. The resurrection is just the proof that Jesus was successful.

[Polycarp]

A thread on this (http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15058) over on the Pizza Parlor. I've defined my POV in the second post there.

[ftg]

Several early Christian groups had widely varying beliefs about what happened over those 4 days. Gnostics have already been mentioned. Most lost out over time to the Roman Catholic beliefs. But "heresies" kept popping up all the time.

Even reading the Gospels, it is not clear to me that resurrection is the de facto interpretation. It may be clear if you have been raised that way, but not necessarily so to others.

I know of no single belief that one can identify as a "must" in order to be a Christian. There have been people who are not sure that Jesus even existed but like the values espoused in the "stories" about him and follow those values as Christians.

[toadspittle]

See also Can a Christian be a Muslim, too? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=174129&highlight=christian) , in which Mangetout notes:

Originally posted by Mangetout
Somebody wiser than me once said that being a Christian is just like being homosexual; if somebody says they are one, then that about wraps it up, I am neither qualified or able to reject such a claim.

[Nametag]

I find it mind-boggling that this is a sticking point for anyone. You believe in God, you believe in miracles, you believe in the Resurrection. Laws of physics don't apply, and the best response to "wouldn't he be rotting?" is "so what?" Getting hung up on the physical mechanism of God's will is like a conspiracy theory in reverse. One may believe or not believe in the Resurrection, but refusing to believe on the basis of scientific arguments is silly.

I certainly think that one can adopt the mission and beliefs of Jesus without accepting his divinity or his resurrection, but such a person is not what the modern world calls a Christian. I also think that a person can accept the divinity of Jesus without accepting a literal physical resurrection, but it's harder to say "that's not Christianity." Remember that Paul emphasized the resurrection, and Pauline Christianity is the Christianity we know today (for the most part -- there are Gnostic Christians, and maybe even Judaic Christians, but it's a pretty small remnant).

Of course, it's easy for me to be doctrinaire, as I don't believe any of it. ;)

[slipster]

A strong argument could be made that belief in the Resurrection is required to be considered a Christian. There is, for instance, 1Corinthians 15, verses 12 through 14:

Now if Christ preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen; And if Christ is not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain." (Quoting here from the KJV.)

This said, it must still be admitted that the word "Christian" is an extremely ambiguous one, and amenable to a lot of conflicting definitions. Maybe the best answer is that one needs to accept the Resurrection to fall into most contemporary, conventional, categories of Christian faith.

[bibliophage]

I doubt there's a factual answer here, so I'll move this thread to Great Debates.

bibliophage
moderator GQ

[Kallisti]

>The key to "being a Christian" is believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to cover your sin and then persevering in righteousness.<

Gnostic Christians do not believe this.

If more people simply tried to live and love like Jesus, rather than fretting over all this supernatural silliness, the world would be a better place.

[Steve Wright]

The idea that the resurrection happened in a spiritual, moral, or metaphysical sense, rather than a literal and physical one, is not a new one - I remember the former Bishop of Durham, Dr. David Jenkins, being roundly criticised by the (generally clueless) popular press for his statement that he didn't believe in the resurrection as "a conjuring trick with bones".

Did it, literally, happen? I don't know, I wasn't there ... if it had, it would defy our understanding of the physical laws of the universe - but God is omnipotent, He can do that if He wants to. (Whether or not He would want to is another matter for debate ... )

But, to my mind, the spiritual/metaphorical truth of the resurrection is actually more important than the literal one. It may be that Christ rose from the dead and lived again in first-century Palestine, but that's not what matters - what matters is whether He lives in our hearts, here and now. And, as far as I can see, people who accept Christ into their hearts are Christians - regardless of whatever doctrine they subscribe to.

[dil]

Originally posted by Kallisti


No

>The key to "being a Christian" is believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to cover your sin and then persevering in righteousness.<

Gnostic Christians do not believe this.

If more people simply tried to live and love like Jesus, rather than fretting over all this supernatural silliness, the world would be a better place.

You can call yourself whatever you wish, but then your definition of "Christian" differs from mine. I gave you my definition above. This doesn't prevent you from misusing the word.

You haven't studied Jesus too much, I take it. His messages weren't all sunshine and rainbows.

[dil]

Sorry, hit Submit too early there.

Jesus was pretty concerned with a lot of "supernatural silliness" too.

[Exion]

I think that dil hits it on the heads. To excorcise all of the "Supernatural Silliness" from the bible leaves you with something less than the bible. I would imagine that if God wanted to believe in something less than the bible, then he would have shortened it.

I don't understand the idea of "I believe in Jesus the Christ, absolutely Pure, son of an All powerful, omnipotent God, but not in miracles cause they are silly!"

That is like saying that I believe in the tooth fairy, but not that she would leave money under the pillow, that would be dumb.

And really, once you remove the specifics of the bible (i.e.) Jesus was just a good man, not the literal son of god) then it gets harder and harder to differentiate between Jesus and the Tooth Fairy.

[Ruok]

1Corinthians 15, verses 12 through 14 seems fairly straightforward and unambiguous to me. I am open (really) to hearing how it is not.

Again, do we get to pick and choose which parts we agree with and discard those we don't?

We can agree to disagree on many things such as head coverings for instance, or heck, women pastors. But maybe I am wrong in thinking there are absolutes. If you don't have His death AND resurrection, then what do you have?

Ultimately, for me I suppose, Christianity is about a personal relationship with Christ, submitting to His authority. He is in control (or should be). He knows where my (and your) heart is, and that is all that really matters. I just don't see how you can have that relationship if you dicount some of the very things he said and did (like those wacky supernatural miracles), do you?

If you can have that relationship and submit yourself to Him without believing His words and deeds, please explain it to me s-l-o-w-l-y. Thanks.

[blowero]

A slightly off-topic question from an atheist: If one doesn't accept the account of the Resurrection, what reason is there to believe anything in the Bible? And if one takes no stock in the Bible, why call yourself a Christian at all? And please - I'm not being facetious; I would appreciate candid answers.

[Cholo]

For those of you who think Jesus's ressurection was purely spiritual...how would you explain this?

The following takes place after the death of Jesus at a gathering of the apostles 3 days after the crucifixion.

And they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hand and feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And while they yeet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye any meat?

And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.

And he took it, and did eat before them.

Luke 24:36-43

So, Jesus tells them not only to look at him and observe his scars but to touch him and take notice the flesh and bones to prove SPECIFICALLY he's not a spirit. He also requests some food and then eats it.

Hmmm...it sure sounds like he was there in the flesh to me.

[Kallisti]

>You can call yourself whatever you wish, but then your definition of "Christian" differs from mine. I gave you my definition above. You can call yourself whatever you wish, but then your definition of "Christian" differs from mine. I gave you my definition above. This doesn't prevent you from misusing the word.

You haven't studied Jesus too much, I take it. His messages weren't all sunshine and rainbows.

You haven't studied Jesus too much, I take it. His messages weren't all sunshine and rainbows.<

I am not misusing the word. Try doing some research on Gnostic Christianity before you open your mouth to inform us all what "REAL CHRISTIANS" believe. I have studided Jesus. Your snotty ignorance is showing.

[Polycarp]

Originally posted by dil
Well, Jesus's body was in a glorified state after the resurrection, so it wasn't quite the same physical body that was put to death. More like the old body had been transformed by the process.

He appeared out of thin air in a room amongst the disciples, for example, and he instructed them not to touch him, so it wasn't exactly the same old Jesus.

I think you can be a Christian without believing in Christ's resurrection, but you'd be a very skeptical Christian. Christianity would have never gotten anywhere if hundreds of people didn't SEE Jesus after he rose from the dead. The key to "being a Christian" is believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to cover your sin and then persevering in righteousness. The resurrection is just the proof that Jesus was successful.

and later

You can call yourself whatever you wish, but then your definition of "Christian" differs from mine. I gave you my definition above. This doesn't prevent you from misusing the word.


I agree wholeheartedly with your point about the resurrected body being something more glorified than the mortal flesh He wore to the Cross. But there are two points in your posts that really bother me:

1. "The key to "being a Christian" is believing that Jesus sacrificed himself to cover your sin and then persevering in righteousness. The resurrection is just the proof that Jesus was successful."

Nothing in error with the first sentence, per se -- although many people would see the Atonement in different terms than the simple substitutionary argument. Like God's love, for example -- in the Hallmark commercial's terms, "He loved us enough to send the Very Best." He knew that evil is a real force, and that He would be forced into suffering and death -- and yet chose to be born as one of us, for our sakes.

The substitutionary atonement, without some fast footwork, makes God the Father out to be a monster who knows that all the humans he created will be sinful, yet creates them in a world where they have no choice but to be sinful and therefore doomed to Hell -- and then kills His own Son as a way of buying Himself and His justice off.

And I will suggest that what Paul has to say in I Corinthians 15 makes the Resurrection something very much more than "just the proof that Jesus was successful" -- in rising to new and richer life, He was the firstfruits of the new and richer life promised us. If you're focused on the Crucifixion side of the Atonment to the extent that the Resurrection side means nothing more than a proof of the meaning of what happened two days before. then you're not looking at the big picture of what God did.

2. "You can call yourself whatever you wish, but then your definition of "Christian" differs from mine. I gave you my definition above. This doesn't prevent you from misusing the word."

I don't recall giving my consent to any circular letter authorizing you to define who is and who is not a Christian. On the other hand, St. Paul's opinions carry a bit more weight: "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Savior and Lord, you will be saved." Not one word about believing in transubstantiation, the Nephites, the meaning of icons, the apostolic succession, the doctrine of eternal progression, the Gifts of the Spirit, the doctrine of sanctification, sola Scriptura, sola fidei, double predestination, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, or any other other accretions we've tacked on it. Just that simple statement in Scripture: believe with heart, confess with mouth, Jesus is Savior and Lord, you're saved. Period.

That includes Monty, vanilla, Copaesthetic, His4Ever, Jersey Diamond, RT Firefly, Triskadecamus, Tygr, Scotticher, yourself, and anybody else who identified himself/herself as Christian over in the MPSIMS thread.

Peace.

[Shaolinrabbit]

Originally posted by Kallisti
I am not misusing the word. Try doing some research on Gnostic Christianity before you open your mouth to inform us all what "REAL CHRISTIANS" believe. I have studided Jesus. Your snotty ignorance is showing.

I'd like to take a moment here to back up Kallisti's assertions about Gnostic Christianity. A Christian, by the broadest definition is literally a follower of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.

We each as Chrsitians seek the truths of His words in our own way. I myself am not a Gnostic Christian, but I have read many Gnostic texts and drawn a great deal of wisdom from them.

I follow a path between the Gnostic and Apostolic and Evangelical. Yet each path is defined by Christ in my research and study, so who is to say that I am not a Christian?

Christ can, of course.

[lel]

In the Collounsbury/Jack Chick thread, Tamerlane posted some guidelines (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3301266#post3301266) of criteria personally used by Tamerlane to define whether or not someone is member of a particular faith or not. While Tamerlane applied these criteria in conjunction with determining if the Nation of Islam was Muslim, could the same criteria be applied here?

Originally posted by Tamerlane
Personally I use three loose criteria to classify people as to whether they are members of a particular faith or not. In rough order of the importance I assign them, they are:

1) Do they label themselves as belonging to a particular faith?

*analysis of Nation of Islam omitted for brevity -- see linked thread above*

2)Do they observe what can be considered to be the core beliefs of this faith?

*analysis of Nation of Islam omitted for brevity*

3)Do other "mainstream" members of that faith regard them as being legitimate members of that faith?

*analysis of Nation of Islam omitted for brevity*

I do not know if using the same criteria for a different religion and in a different context is fair, but let me try to apply such to Christians who do not believe in a physical resurrection.

1. Yes. For one, Bishop Spong appears to argue that there was no physical resurrection and also claims the label "Christian."

2. This would need clarification -- is physical resurrection of Jesus a core belief of Christianity? If the physical resurrection is a core belief of Christianity, what number of core beliefs must be adhered to in order to consider one a Christian?

3. This is another "I don't know." It would not surprise me if a large segment of mainstream Christians considered the physical resurrection of Jesus as essential in order to consider one a Christian, but again, I don't know.

[Skott]

Originally posted by Copaesthetic
A Christian, by the broadest definition is literally a follower of Christ, nothing more, nothing less.A good definition, and probably the simpliest that anyone here can agree on.

A few points, though, based on the few texts that we have regarding Jesus:

- Jesus claimed there was a supernatural God
- He was described as performing supernatural miracles, including resurrection.
- He claimed he was the Son of God.
- He claimed he would be killed and then brought back to life.
- He claimed that without his death and resurrection, there would be no way that humans could have eternal life.
- He claimed that eternal life for humans was the commandment of God.

If you don't believe these things, then either you can't believe all things that Jesus said or you can't believe everything that was written about him. If you can't believe all things that he said, then you reject (at least in part) him. If you don't believe what was written about him, then you have to select and choose what you feel was correct that was written about him, and by what basis can you make those selections?

Being someone who selects and chooses what they believe and do from the message presented about Jesus does not make them his follower (i.e. a Christian), it means that they simply agree with some of what was written about him. And in the same way that agreeing with only part of any groups beliefs does not make you a part of that group, believing only part of the message presented about Jesus doen't make them a follower, and thus does not make them a Christian.

In the end, it would be pretty easy to say that I agree with blowero. :)

But as toadspittle quoted Mangetout, anyone can call themselves a Christian, and who is anyone to judge whether they are or not? But calling yourself a Christian does not make you one.

[John Mace]

Since there is no "Christian" religion, doesn't it make more sense to say: Can you be a Catholic (or Episcopalian, or Coptic, or...) and not believe in the literal resurection of Christ?

We'll never agree on a comon definition of "Christian" so the question as posted is meaningless.

Having said that, I'm surprised no one has brought up the "doubting Thomas" story in the gospel(s) yet. That seems like a pretty strong hint that the writer(s) of the gospel(s), at least, considered the phsyical resurection to be a key tenet of the faith. I'm equivocating on the plurals in those last sentences because I don't remember if the story was in only one gosple or in more than one.

[Kallisti]

"But calling yourself a Christian does not make you one."

No. In the end, only the Creator judges who is a Christian, not other men.

The whole "Believe all of it or none of it" argument is laughable on it's face.

[Shaolinrabbit]

Originally posted by Skott
A few points, though, based on the few texts that we have regarding Jesus:

- Jesus claimed there was a supernatural God
- He was described as performing supernatural miracles, including resurrection.
- He claimed he was the Son of God.
- He claimed he would be killed and then brought back to life.
- He claimed that without his death and resurrection, there would be no way that humans could have eternal life.
- He claimed that eternal life for humans was the commandment of God.

If you don't believe these things, then either you can't believe all things that Jesus said or you can't believe everything that was written about him.

It would be the latter. What I often talk about with my beliefs is not just a matter of selection, but a matter of research and study. The problem that you have with the above assertions is that they(Some of them) apply to the canonized Bible, not Christian texts in general. So, someone who wishes to follow Christ in truth cannot do it blindly. You have to seek the truth out, and when you find a piece of it, you hold it.

There are very few situations when we will accept the judgement of others based on the raw truth without supporting evidence. I do believe, for example, that Christ Himself claimed to be the son of God. But I believe this because there is evidence to support it, in the comparison of the early Christian writings, not simply because it is mentioned in a single source. This sentiment was repeated through many sources, and in many ways. So it becomes a part of my canon of Christianity.

I think we've answered the OP rather well with questions. :)

[JRDelirious]

John Mace probably has it down, in the sense of relevancy of the question. At best you can state what beliefs historically make up so-called "mainstream Christianity" -- the Apostolic creed -- but that tells you nothing about the standing of those outside that tent, since it would not apply to them, would it? OTOH, the mind does boggle at the range between a belief in Jesus as an enlightened master whose teachings are useful to learn, and one in JC as "Your Lord and Savior"

Oh, sure, a supefyingly huge % of the founding theologians of most Cristian denominations since the late 1st Century CE may let go of each other's throats just long enough to say that Gnostic Christianity is The heresy of heresies... or at best a really "far out" interpretation trip that is fundamentally Gnostic and only incidentally Christian. But that would just be a majority consensus of theologians, not a nailing down of objective universal truth.

[JRDelirious]

And before anyone gets confused: by that last sentence, I mean that a majority consensus of experts, though usually reliable for most cases, can still be wrong, or be inapplicable to a particular case. YMMV, Restrictions Apply, Void Where Prohibited, etc.

[LorieSmurf]

Speaking as a former Christian (I'm not really anything now. Well, maybe semi-Neo-Pagan):

It seems to me if you (not a specific you, but a general you) believe certain parts of the Bible enough to be a Christian, you should believe all of it. If not, what the heck are you doing following that religion? I mean, the Bible says that Jesus rose again, the disciples and other folks saw him, Jesus even told Thomas to touch Him if he needed proof that he was actually there.

Why is the resurrection story so hard to swallow?..especially if you believe in a God that created the world, created humans, animals, helps people, answers prayers, and all the other things the Christian God is supposed to do?

[The Ryan]

[i]Originally posted by Ruok
If you don't have His death AND resurrection, then what do you have?
You have faith in Jesus, which he said was all you need.

I just don't see how you can have that relationship if you dicount some of the very things he said and did (like those wacky supernatural miracles), do you?
So do you believe that Jesus was gay? Or are you going to find a way to discount statements about him while still having a relationship him?

If you can have that relationship and submit yourself to Him without believing His words and deeds, please explain it to me s-l-o-w-l-y. Thanks.
What's there to explain? Whatever one does to submit to him with believing his words and deeds, you do except without believing them.

Skott
He claimed that without his death and resurrection, there would be no way that humans could have eternal life.
Really? Where?

Being someone who selects and chooses what they believe and do from the message presented about Jesus does not make them his follower (i.e. a Christian), it means that they simply agree with some of what was written about him.
Yes, but neither does it make one not a follower.

[Zoe]

A few points, though, based on the few texts that we have regarding Jesus:

- Jesus claimed there was a supernatural God
- He was described as performing supernatural miracles, including resurrection.
- He claimed he was the Son of God.
- He claimed he would be killed and then brought back to life.
- He claimed that without his death and resurrection, there would be no way that humans could have eternal life.
- He claimed that eternal life for humans was the commandment of God.

Actually, it was a group of men three hundred years later that claimed that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John claimed that they recalled that Jesus claimed these things. :)

I believe in the Resurrection of the Christ. But I don't believe in judging whether someone else is a Christian. That task has not been offered to me.

If you don't believe what was written about him, then you have to select and choose what you feel was correct that was written about him, and by what basis can you make those selections?

Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit for starters. What is the point of believing that the Christ rose from the dead if you don't believe that he can influence your heart and your mind today?

Pax

[Triskadecamus]

Well, I have no authority for my opinion, and I don't do dueling verses. But the Lord I know, and love is the greatest source of love and forgiveness that can be. I will not assume that anyone is beyond His reach. And everyone He says is a Christian is a Christian. Come to think of it, other than that criterion, there are no criteria. Perhaps we should await His opinion on the matter.

Until then, what say we just call all souls on this Earth our brothers and sisters? Theology is too hard. Love, on the other hand, is rather easy, once you get in the habit.

Tris
-----------------------
"They couldn't take my innocence. I didn't have any left."

[lynn73]

Personally, I don't really understand how or see how a person can be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection. It's one of the central beliefs of the Christian faith. The Bible says that "For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ. we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept." 1 Corinthians 15:16-20

I also believe it was a literal, physical, bodily resurrection not just spiritual. He appeared to people in the same body bearing the scars of the crucifiction. "And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then said he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." John 20:26-27

It's true His body had new qualities such as the ability to pass through closed doors, but I believe it was the same body according to the Scripture above. He also ate food before His disciples and appeared to many.

"To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." Acts 1:3

To those who think Jesus only rose spiritually:

"And as they (the disciples) thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet."

If you believe the Bible and Jesus' own words, he had flesh and bones and could be handled and examined by his followers. He presented Himself physically to be seen, to eat, and be touched. In His own words, he wasn't just a spirit. If you don't believe Him, well.....what more can be said?

[lynn73]

The last Scripture quotation is from Luke 24:36-40.

[kunilou]

The following was taken from my church bulletin this (Easter morning). The church I attend is ELCA (Lutheran, but not as literalist as the Missouri or Wisconsin Synods.) Since it was printed by the Augsburg Fortress, I have to assume what it says is at least in general agreement with the principles of this particular branch of Christianity.

"Easter tells us that whatever we say about Jesus - that he taught love, insisted on justice, fed the hungry, cured the sick, confronted evil and forgave His enemies - if we can not first of all say he rose from the dead, none of the rest will carry us to the end...

"Without it we are left only with a good man, fading hopes and no power to prevail against the ills and woes of life and fears of death...

"The first word of faith is the first word for Easter: 'Christ is risen, allelulia!' With that good news we trust and discover that every day thereafter holds hope and is filled with promise."

[Cholo]

Personally, I believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, prior to my salvation, I gave some thought about two events that actually helped convinced me that Jesus really did arise.

1. Why on Earth would the apostles (and later on, Paul) go on with their lives fervently spreading the word throughout the nations AND going to their deaths happily if Jesus had not rose from the dead? Bear in mind, these were adults that were not brainwashed from childhood to believe in something that they hadn't personally witnessed. This wasn't something they were brought up with through their formulative years. These men saw (except Paul) the events happen. After the death of Christ they were also subsequently wanted and persecuted for spreading the gospel. If Jesus truly died and stayed put...why the necessity for spreading the word and risking their lives? Why would you not shake it off or condemn it as a falsehood? What was the purpose of the rest of their lives if Jesus was truly dead?

The other reason which to me is even more evident that Jesus arose...

2. The reigning Jewish leaders and the Roman government at the time of Jesus's death both had solid reasons to quash this "false messiah" nonsense. His "movement" was a total threat to the Jewish temple leaders...he threatened their livlihood and deep rooted beliefs. The Romans on the other hand had an interest in keeping the status quo in Jerusalum. They certainly didn't need any further trouble out of the Jewish people and needed the support of the Temple leaders to keep order. Had Jesus not physically arose...it would make sense that they would have displayed his body to the public that Jesus really was dead. Afterall, to insure that Jesus remained dead (there were rampant rumors he would rise in three days) Pilate installed some Roman soldiers to watch over the tomb to prevent followers of Jesus that might be tempted to steal his body. It was their DUTY to keep Jesus in the tomb. So...if he didn't arise, why not display his body?

Of course reason is...it simply wasn't there. Read about it...it's the greatest story ever told.

[Polycarp]

Cholo, see my link above. I'd be really interested in seeing how you counter the arguments I mention there (and those of others). Thanks!

[dil]

Originally posted by Polycarp
The substitutionary atonement, without some fast footwork, makes God the Father out to be a monster who knows that all the humans he created will be sinful, yet creates them in a world where they have no choice but to be sinful and therefore doomed to Hell -- and then kills His own Son as a way of buying Himself and His justice off.

I don't think this makes God a monster. God doesn't put us in a position where we must sin. He gives us complete freedom of choice. We choose to do things that are contrary to God's plan, therefore we sin.

And I will suggest that what Paul has to say in I Corinthians 15 makes the Resurrection something very much more than "just the proof that Jesus was successful" -- in rising to new and richer life, He was the firstfruits of the new and richer life promised us. If you're focused on the Crucifixion side of the Atonment to the extent that the Resurrection side means nothing more than a proof of the meaning of what happened two days before. then you're not looking at the big picture of what God did.

I agree with you 100%, I was just trying to be as succinct as possible. I shouldn't have said "just the proof", certainly it is more than that.

2. "You can call yourself whatever you wish, but then your definition of "Christian" differs from mine. I gave you my definition above. This doesn't prevent you from misusing the word."

I don't recall giving my consent to any circular letter authorizing you to define who is and who is not a Christian. On the other hand, St. Paul's opinions carry a bit more weight: "If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Savior and Lord, you will be saved." Not one word about believing in transubstantiation, the Nephites, the meaning of icons, the apostolic succession, the doctrine of eternal progression, the Gifts of the Spirit, the doctrine of sanctification, sola Scriptura, sola fidei, double predestination, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture, or any other other accretions we've tacked on it. Just that simple statement in Scripture: believe with heart, confess with mouth, Jesus is Savior and Lord, you're saved. Period.

I didn't mean to imply that I had the authority to define what is a Christian for ALL people. I was just saying that TO ME this is what it means and if someone else claims they are a Christian but they don't believe Jesus was the son of God, then TO ME they are misusing the word.

Also, I think Paul and James would have had a heated debate about what it takes to be a Christian. James would have said that even the demons meet the qualifications Paul has given to be a Christian, and yet certainly they are not saved. What is missing here is that you have to make Jesus the Lord of your life, it is not JUST believing in him. Paul probably thought this was obvious and that's why he didn't explicitly include it in this statement, although he did say "confess that Jesus is Saviour and Lord", and I think we can safely extrapolate that Paul intended us to speak in truth when we confess Jesus as Lord so we get to the same end result.

[lynn73]

Yes, dil, as you alluded to, "the devils also believe, and tremble", yet they arent's saved. One can believe it's all true without taking any action upon it. There's a difference between mental assent and heart belief. Is a person saved just because they say, "ok I believe God exists and Jesus came and died on the cross, etc etc." I have to say I don't think so. It's the heart belief in Christ that saves, not just the mental assent that He did the things He did. Remember there are those who'll say "Lord Lord didn't we do this and that for you?" and He's going to say "Depart from me, I never knew you."

[Guinastasia]

Remember there are those who'll say "Lord Lord didn't we do this and that for you?" and He's going to say "Depart from me, I never knew you."


NO!!!

It is those who say, "My Lord, we never saw you hungry, or sad, or alone!"

And he will say, "Whatever you didn't do for the least of them, you didn't do for me. Now get out of here."

It most certainly does NOT say what you claim it does!

[Kallisti]

>Gnostic Christianity is The heresy of heresies... or at best a really "far out" interpretation trip that is fundamentally Gnostic and only incidentally Christian. But that would just be a majority consensus of theologians, not a nailing down of objective universal truth.<

I'm sure JC would agree that whatever the majority believe must be true.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Polycarp]

His and Guin, actually you are looking at different sides of the same concept, and "describing the elephant as like a rope or like a tree." Actually, at rock bottom, it's God's grace that saves us, not anything that we can do, even believe. I know the passage that His is alluding to, and the point to it is that people are trying to buy their way into heaven by good deeds (Pharisee style legalism, not out of the goodness of their heart). On the other foot, Guin's point, which His has agreed to in other debates, is that, as James says, a true commitment in faith is going to result in the doing of God's will by the person so committed -- resulting in "the deeds of the sheep." I personally don't think it's anywhere near as complex as it seems -- God loves each of us. Hence if a given man, let's call him gopanda to avoid identifying any particular person, feels driven away from Christ by the hateful deeds of people claiming to be Christians, yet tries to follow the teachings of Christ in his own life as he understands God's truth to be, God will be merciful to gopanda. On the other hand, applying the principle of the parable that Guin quoted to the situation, those who persecuted him using Scripture as their justification may be very surprised to find themselves "among the goats." (And, His, that was the point to the question Acquiesce raised over in the Pizza Parlor Kitchen -- please do not hear any of that is accusation against any one individual; if the shoes one wears while reading that pinch anyone's feet, I'm not intentionally targeting them, though God may be doing so.)

[Ruok]

Guinastasia, I believe you are thinking of Mt 25:31-46.

His4ever is quoting from Mt 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Ruok
Guinastasia, I believe you are thinking of Mt 25:31-46.

His4ever is quoting from Mt 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Yes, thanks, Ruok.

Poly, I understand what you're saying I think and you're right the Scripture can be used in a wrong way. Of course, we're probably not all going to agree on which way is right either. You could say somone is using a Scripture to hurt someone when in reality God is trying to reach them about something in their life. But it can happen the way you say, too. It can be abused. I could go on but that's not prudent for now. I see where you're coming from though.

[Guinastasia]

Ah, my mistake. Sorry, His.

[Spite]

Can you be a Christian and not believe in His resurrection?

Emphatically, yes.

Would a vast majority of Christians consider those who do not believe in His recurrection, and all that it entails, a Christian in an difinitive term? Most likely not.

And while anyone can label themselves anything they wish, to ascribe their claims as an accpetance by others is fallicious and arrogant.

Can a man claim to be homosexual because he had sexual relations with a male when he was a boy, but today finds such acts repugnant?

Where is the definition and listed criteria? I do not consider Gnostics Christians in even the most liberal use of the word. Apparantly they would disagree. So yes they can, but will they be called that is another question.

[Tiggis]

Kallisti - "I am a Gnostic Christian " debunked by Saint John in 1st John, get another religion!

The problem is on of semantics.

I can state that I am an egg and I can believe this to my very death, but if I do not conform to the practical description of an egg I believe in vain.

The word Christian we are told was first coined in Antioch, Since they were the first christians one could argue that they are the standard by which the christian definition can be formed. They most certainly did believe in a bodily resurection of christ.

But as word meanings change over time, one could argue that the definition has changed to allow a more diverse definition of the term meaning anyone who basically thinks Jesus was a good guy.. and the bible is a good book..

[Kallisti]

>Kallisti - "I am a Gnostic Christian " debunked by Saint John in 1st John, get another religion!<

Tiggis, How about you go fuck yourself. If you want to attack my religion, make a thread for it; otherwise just kiss my Gnostic Christian ass.

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Ah, my mistake. Sorry, His.

:) :)

[Rockford]

Hey Kallisti, don't let the door hit your troll ass on the way out.

[Guinastasia]

Oh, my. Now, that's VERY NOT Christian. Gnostic or not!

:eek:

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Earlier today, Coldfire told Kallisti:
Next time you cross the line, you're out.
Well, that certainly didn't take long, did it?

Goodbye, Kallisti.

------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Incidentally, Rockford, there was no need to make that comment. Next time, just report the message and let the moderators handle it, 'kay?

-----
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[JRDelirious]

Tiggis, "get another religion" was a bit snarkier than necessary, specially for a first-post -- and you had good post except for that first line. Just a suggestion that when you have a good point you can just put it forward, no need to slam the other fellow.

[Tiggis]

Sorry.. I didnt mean to slap and feed the troll..

I will do better.

[The Ryan]

Cholo: do you have any basis, other than the Bible, for believing in any of the evidence that you cite? Any evidence that the disciples were persecuted for claiming to have personally witnessed Jesus' resurrection, or that the Romans were really seriously concerned about Jesus, that they had soldiers guard the tomb or that they didn't produce Jesus body?

[Nomadic_One]

I think this depends on your definition of "christian".

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

2.Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

3.Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

4.Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.

5.Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

....as you can see there are many different ways of being (a) "christian"

(definitions curtesty of dictionary.com)

[Cholo]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Cholo: do you have any basis, other than the Bible, for believing in any of the evidence that you cite? Any evidence that the disciples were persecuted for claiming to have personally witnessed Jesus' resurrection, or that the Romans were really seriously concerned about Jesus, that they had soldiers guard the tomb or that they didn't produce Jesus body?


Ryan,

Honestly? No. I believe the Bible. I don't neccessarily need to verify every single incident outside the Word of God. You make a good point though. It would be interesting to see if there are any other historical documents that detail the apostles after Jesus. However...let's be real for a moment regarding Jesus's tomb. IF the Romans or the Sanhedrin had produced the body of Christ...we wouldn't be talking about this "resurrection" business would we? The Bible would be invalid and the world would have been EAGER to quash this "messiah" nonsense.

Jesus was either a who he said he was or he was a hoax. It's a simple choice. What are you going to do with that?

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Cholo
Ryan,

Honestly? No. I believe the Bible. I don't neccessarily need to verify every single incident outside the Word of God. You make a good point though. It would be interesting to see if there are any other historical documents that detail the apostles after Jesus. However...let's be real for a moment regarding Jesus's tomb. IF the Romans or the Sanhedrin had produced the body of Christ...we wouldn't be talking about this "resurrection" business would we? The Bible would be invalid and the world would have been EAGER to quash this "messiah" nonsense.

Jesus was either a who he said he was or he was a hoax. It's a simple choice. What are you going to do with that?

I can agree with this. I also believe the Bible and don't feel that I need to verify everything it says from an outside source. I consider it reliable and God's word. If you think Jesus didn't rise from the dead bodily, then produce His body with absolute proof that it's His. Cholo is right, you either believe Him or you don't believe Him....simple choice. Everyone makes their own.

[Desmostylus]

[short hijack]
His4ever, earlier this month I asked you why you posted on this board, and I liked your response (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3248274#post3248274). I should have thanked you for your answer at the time. But better late than never, so thankyou.
[/short hijack]

[The Ryan]

Cholo- But if you simply believe in the Bible, and that's that, then why present all these arguments for it? And why do you expect me to believe that the Romans producing the body would have stopped the talk of the Resurrection?

[Cholo]

Originally posted by The Ryan
Cholo- But if you simply believe in the Bible, and that's that, then why present all these arguments for it? And why do you expect me to believe that the Romans producing the body would have stopped the talk of the Resurrection?

Ryan,

Who's arguing?I simply addressed the post regarding the resurrection and why it rings true to me. I stated that the Apostles are recorded in the Bible of turning into true believers that Jesus was indeed the Son of God AFTER the resurrection. Bear in mind they became cowards once Jesus the man was arrested. Jesus's favorite, Peter, denied he even knew Jesus at three separate times in a matter of hours after Jesus was arrested and he was the same guy who stated he would lay down his life for Jesus that same night. They ALL fled in fear...so the real question is...what turned them into zealots after Jesus died? What made them go into other countries and spread the gospel (which of course means "the good news" as in "he has risen") for decades until their deaths without fear about the consequences? Why would they devote their lives to someone who was a liar? That's exactly what he would have been had he stayed dead wouldn't he?

Regarding my comment about the Romans. Think about it. There would have simply been no reason for anyone to buy off on Jesus as the Son of God had he not resurrected. The Sanhedrin and the Romans did not want this Jesus nonsense to go any further than it did. His following was growing and threatening the power and authority of the Sanhedrin and they pleaded/manipulated with Pontius Pilate to officially have him executed. The Sanhedrin also wanted to be sure that the Apostles did not steal his body from the tomb to give any credence to Jesus's earlier message about rising from the dead in 3 days. That's why they stationed guards outside the tomb. Once the resurrection occured the Sanhedrin and the Romans were stunned. Rumors abounded that Jesus arose. (Bear in mind, Jesus was seen by others than just the 11 Apostles at this time) I'm sure by then, the Sandhedrin and the Romans would have LOVED nothing but to quash these "rumors" and the simplest way to do so would have been to parade his body. Had they been able to produce his body, the resurrection of Jesus would have been proven false and the ministry of Jesus would have therefore been invalid. Therefore he would have been PROVEN to have been a liar and a lunatic like all the other so called "Messiahs" who came calling to Jerusalem at this time in history. But they couldn't produce his body. The tomb was empty. This "Messiah" was entirely something else.

Ryan, I answered your question. How about answering mine this time? I'll ask it again.

Jesus was either who he said he is or he was a hoax.
What do you say?

[Polycarp]

Cholo, there's one small problem with your last comment. What the Church has created as a theology of the nature of Jesus Christ ("Christology") is not necessarily who and what Jesus was. I happen to believe it's a good approximation of the truth using Aristotelian/Athanasian logical categories -- but I can respect someone who says that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah that the Jews expected -- a man -- but in a role of "victory in defeat" rather than "Hail, the Conquering Hero Comes" (which is Judas Maccabaeus, not Christ, anyway).

AFAIK, any person who ascribes any degree of approach to accuracy to Matthew, Luke, or John, or to either of the two endings of Mark, will have to admit that something happened that changed the lives of Jesus's followers from rather doltish and fairly cowardly individuals into people standing against torture and death for a truth in which they believed. The various theories to explain away the post-Easter stories suffer from the fact that, on the presumption that the Gospels are reporting something anywhere near the truth, almost immediately people began acting quite different than they had. Something convinced them.

I think a lot of skeptics have a big problem with the idea of the resuscitation of Jesus's physical body -- it sounds like a particularly cheesy "B" horror movie -- "Night of the Undead Messiah." (And in the back of my mind I can see Jesus chuckling at that idea and doing three or four stiff-legged arms-extended Boris Karloff-style zombie steps, grinning all the while.)

The fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians gives Paul's reasoned explanation of what it was that happened, and why, and I think it's among his finest pieces of writing. It's quite long to quote here unless someone feels it essential, though.

[Magiver]

Answer to original question:

Christian, no. Follower of Jesus Christ's desire that we all love each other and act accordingly, yes.

All religions involve a single common thread, faith. In order to believe in a theology, it is necessary to compartmentalize rational thought and accept that which you cannot prove.

The "resurection" is only one of many tenets/concepts that are beyond our ability to verify. It requires an act of faith, not reason.

[The Ryan]

Cholo: explaining why a particular set of claims leads to another set being true seems like an argument to me. Not "argument" in the sense of "quarrel", but "a course of reasoning".

Your argument, or explanation, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't make sense to me. You believe the Bible because the stuff in the Bible makes it seem like the stuff in the Bible is true?

As for the "where's the body?" question, I could talk for days of assertions that been shown to be definitely, absolutely, without a doubt false, and yet people still continue to believe them. In my experience, in every society there is a large population of highly gullible people, even in one such as ours where people have unprecedented access to information. I see absolutely no reason to suppose that Roman Judea, with even less public access to information, was an exception to this rule.

Also, you seem to be still expecting me to take for granted that Christianity was this huge concern that you claim it was. I just don't see any reason to suppose that the Romans really cared.

There's another major problem with your position. You say that the body disappeared despite being securely guarded, and say that because of this the disciples believed in Jesus. But this works the other way, too. The vast majority (as in probably 99.99%) of the people of Judea didn't believe in Jesus. Now, it's a basic principle of logic that if A implies B, then it follows that not B implies not A. So if Jesus' body disappearing implies that people would believe in Jesus, then people not believing in Jesus would imply that Jesus' body did not disappear. Seems to me we're faced with two possibilities. One is that Jesus predicted that he would rise from the dead, and did so, and we have to explain how an entire country, when confronted with incredibly convincing evidence, managed to continue to not believe in Jesus. The other is that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and we have to explain why people believed in him anyway. Faced with having to either dismiss a small group of people who quite possibly were the ancient version of today's cultists, or dismiss an entire population, I'll go for the former.

As for whether Jesus was a liar:
Matthew
the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 24:30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 24:31 And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.
Seems to me that if you believe that what the Bible says Jesus said, he said, then he clearly was wrong. Liar? Maybe not. But he was definitely wrong.

As for your question, my answer is "I disagree".

[Desmostylus]

Originally posted by Polycarp
The fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians gives Paul's reasoned explanation of what it was that happened, and why, and I think it's among his finest pieces of writing. It's quite long to quote here unless someone feels it essential, though. Link to 1 Corinthians 15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=1+corinthians+15&version=NIV).

[smiling bandit]

The more recent scholars Bonhoeffer and Bultman wrote some thigns that imply they though Christians needs to live regardless of God; that is, they needed to live as if there were no God, while following the precepts they bvelieved in. Mysticism was just too tired out to them. However, it also should be noted that they lived through the dark days of Nazism, and they tended to believe that the world had gone to hell completely.

[Ruok]

Originally posted by The Ryan

Matthew
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

Seems to me that if you believe that what the Bible says Jesus said, he said, then he clearly was wrong. Liar? Maybe not. But he was definitely wrong.

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I am not educated enough to know the answer. But your argument that Jesus was definitely wrong hinges on the word 'generation', yes? I wonder what the actual concept would be in the original tongue? A bible here at work offers an alternate translation of 'generation' as 'race' . In that context Jesus was neither a liar or wrong.

Just a thought. In the end it all comes down to faith. What is interesting is what some people put their faith in.

[lynn73]

Originally posted by The Ryan


As for whether Jesus was a liar:

Seems to me that if you believe that what the Bible says Jesus said, he said, then he clearly was wrong. Liar? Maybe not. But he was definitely wrong.



Perhaps when Jesus was saying "this generation shall not pass away, etc" he was speaking of the generation that saw the things he was talking about begin to come to pass. Just a thought. I don't believe Jesus was a liar. We sometimes misinterpret what He says.

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Desmostylus
[short hijack]
His4ever, earlier this month I asked you why you posted on this board, and I liked your response (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3248274#post3248274). I should have thanked you for your answer at the time. But better late than never, so thankyou.
[/short hijack]

Thanks...:)

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Ruok
I don't mean to be argumentative, and I am not educated enough to know the answer. But your argument that Jesus was definitely wrong hinges on the word 'generation', yes? I wonder what the actual concept would be in the original tongue? A bible here at work offers an alternate translation of 'generation' as 'race' . In that context Jesus was neither a liar or wrong.
But remember that I said "Seems to me that if you believe that what the Bible says Jesus said, he said, then he clearly was wrong." Could it be that what the Bible says Jesus said is wrong? Yes. But We're operating under the premise that the Bible is correct.

His4Ever
Perhaps when Jesus was saying "this generation shall not pass away, etc" he was speaking of the generation that saw the things he was talking about begin to come to pass.
If you're going to allow that sort of nitpick, then I say the Bible never claims that Jesus rose from the dead. Just try to prove me wrong.

[vanilla]

Originally posted by His4ever
Perhaps when Jesus was saying "this generation shall not pass away, etc" he was speaking of the generation that saw the things he was talking about begin to come to pass.

exactly.
The generation that saw the sign (the 1967 war in Israel IMHO) was the "last" generation.
IIRC, a generation, in the Bible, is 40 years.
So....times running out!
:)

[Mars Horizon]

When I was growing up, the "sign" was believed to be the formation of Israel in 1948. Since 1988 has come and gone with no raptures, tribulations, or second comings, I guess the date has to be moved forward? I wonder what will the sign be once 2007 comes and goes too? ;)

[dalovindj]

I wonder what will the sign be once 2007 comes and goes too?If that happens then it is time to party like it's 1999!