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.
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.
>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.
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:
- “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.
- “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.
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.
In the Collounsbury/Jack Chick thread, Tamerlane posted some guidelines 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?
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.
-
Yes. For one, Bishop Spong appears to argue that there was no physical resurrection and also claims the label “Christian.”
-
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?
-
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You have faith in Jesus, which he said was all you need.
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?
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
Really? Where?
Yes, but neither does it make one not a follower.
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.
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
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.”
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?
The last Scripture quotation is from Luke 24:36-40.
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.”
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.
- 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…
- 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.