Bishop N.T. Wright, who is more of a Bible scholar than either Diogenes or I, sums it up- the early Christian were Jews who believed that Jesus was resurrected; Resurrection meant one thing to Jews of that era- dead bodies getting up.
Paul’s talking about Jesus & us not being resurrected in a “psychic” (“soulish”, translated “natural”) body but in a “pneumatic” (“spiritual”) body does not deny the physical material nature of the Resurrection, but instead affirms that the body will be immortal & incorruptible, not less than physical but more.
Thanks- my point was, Jesus calls for extraordinary self-sacrificial virtue, not just common courtesy & normal rational virtue. If JC is not risen, there’s no real reason to take his extraordinary commands seriously as he has no demonstable authority to make such demands.
What on Earth do you mean by the above passage? You really have me confused. The first 150 years of Christianity (presumably 33 - 183 CE) were an era in which the Christian Church was a small sect with little or no power. The Pagan Roman authorities would not have been bothered by the Crucifixion or the fact that it happened in Jerusalem. Hell, it was they who did it and they did not care a rat’s ass about it. They crucified people all the time, all over the place, at the drop of a hat!
Are you not maybe confusing this with the destruction of the Temple and the creation of the Diaspora in 70 CE as a result of the Third Jewish Revolt against Roman rule?
Friar Ted, Let me first explain that there is no common Christian ground between us, since I am a gay person who has lived with another man for 31 years and last year was legally married in Canada. So my beliefs and yours are irreconcilable opposites.
But I believe in the principle of keeping my friends close and my enemies closer, so I am a surprisingly avid Biblical scholar. If I can read “Lord of the Rings” and not believe it literally, I can do the same with the Bible.
So just out of curiosity, where exactly does Jesus say we must not “fornicate” outside marriage?
Actually, Valteron, te me it all makes perfect sense not matter if it’s in the Bible or not. A lot of religions have some kind of initiation rite (to separate *Us The True People * from Them Who Worship False Idols) and some rules that go against basic human needs and urges. By being chaste, you are proving to yourself and others in your group, congregation, what have you, that you are indeed worthy of being a part of it all. It doesn’t have to make any sense at all, in fact, it’s better if it doesn’t make sense.
So the priesthood interpret things in the holy book, the sayings of The Wise Man or read the tea leaves swirling in a cup, and come up with some outlandish demands to separate Us from Them. I have no problem with that or if it’s in the Bible or not.
These names were so common it would be hard not to find family tombs with a combination of the names. In fact my mechanic is named Jesus, his mother’s name was Mary, his dad is Joe and his wife is Maria. I never thought that he was the Messiah (although he was able to bring my alternator back from the dead…)
But really, with the OP, I would be slightly conflicted but not totally. I’m a Catholic of convenience (bred, wed and dead) who believes in a creator and that Jesus had some great things to teach. Was JC the son of God or a primitive David Blaine, I’m not sure. But He was able to get a lot of people to listen to his message of love and acceptance, shook up the powers that be, pissed off the established bureaucrats and theocrats that finally nailed Him. His words were inspirational and thought-provoking and have been taken to heart by millions over the millennia.
The key to Christianity might be his resurrection, but the heart of Christ was what he taught. If he never rose from the dead, he would still be the most influential speaker in history, bigger than Tony Robbins. I would still think his message was wonderful, the nicest things a man could say.
I am not a church goer. I am one of the confused undecided.
I feel that the message should be held as high as, if not higher than the messenger.
However, I realise that one of the key tenants of Christianity is the sacrifice that Jesus, himself, made on the behalf of humanity, which is an act and miracle seperate from, but in addition to, the message of good will toward your fellow man.
Can you not believe in the Resurrection and self sacrifice of Christ and still be Christian? I am under the impression that the question was settled by some of the early leaders of the Christian Church, and they said “No”, correct?
My Opinion on the Original Question, as asked, would be “No, the devout believers would not be detered if the body found in the tomb was declared to be Christ’s.”.
Gary Habermas is a fundamentalist apologist (self described on both counts) who teaches at Jerry Falwell’s University and is a YEC believer. The conclusions he draws from his “study” (which seem to consist primarily of ticking off scholars as being in favor of empty tomb historicity based on whether or not they ever seem t o accept or support any number of suppositions about it) tend to be disputed the mainstream.
Not that I think appeals to authority mean much anyway, and that’s why i haven’t done that in this thread. I’d like to quote Peter Kirby from his piece on the empty tomb
What evidence does Wright present for the asertion that the earliets Christians (meaning the direct followers of Jesus) believed this or claimed it.
Paul was a Jew who disputed that.
Excuse me, but that’s exactly what it does. Paul says that what goes into the ground stays in the ground and calls people fools for believing that physical bodies can come back to life. He uses the analogy of sowing seeds (dead bodies) which “regrow” as spiritual bodies.
This doesn’t even make sense. Paul clearly states that resurrected bodies are not physical at all.
When he returns, ask him to pee in a cup.
This issue brings up the question of whether Jesus left behind a corpse. I grew up hearing the story that Jesus returned and ascended in spiritual form and left a corpse in the tomb. The stone having been rolled away for unknown reasons. The holes in his feet and hands? Well those were there to show that he was Jesus, and that he was supernatural. The guy walked on water, so keeping holes in his spiritual hands isn’t much of a feat, but he did have reason to have them.
I’m talking about Christian attitudes; not Roman. See my post #84 for support. And I should have said “the 150 years following the destruction of the city.”
Well, to the OP:
If, by methods unknown to me, it were proven that the body in the tomb was THE Jesus then I would stop being Christian, period. Most Christians who take theuir religion seriously would do the same.
This is not something like “what if the Sermon of the Beatitudes happended in three occasions and not in one?” kind of thing, it is THE thing. No resurrection, no Christianity. Paul says is (as another poster mentioned). Of course some Christian will come up with stupid explanations, but I can’t see the Big Christian denominations such as Catholicism, Orthodox, Lutherans, Baptists to be able to salvage Christianity. At most, some Buddhism kind of thing, with a Teacher-but-not-God sorta thing.
That does not at all read to me as if he’s describing Jesus. It sounds as if he’s describing what being “raised” means to the rest of us schmucks, not the singular resurrection of Jesus.
Where does he say they’re the same? Seriously, I leave it up anyone who reads this. I think a simple reading of this does not lead to what you think it concludes.
Your cite does not AT ALL read to me as if he’s describing Jesus’s resurrection. It reads as if he’s answering the question, “What does it mean when the scriptures say that the faithful will be raised up? Does that mean my corpse will be dug up and trotted out before the Lord? Ewww!”
What’s actually going on is that the Corinthians are skeptical about the possibility of their own resurrections because they don’t believe that physical bodies can be brought back to life. Paul calls them “fools” for thinking of resurrection as referring to physical bodies. Now these new Christian converts supposedly would have known all about Jesus’ physical resurrection, so why would they be skeptical that God could do it for them? If you want to make the ad hoc argument that Jesus was a special case (something that Paul himself never says), then how do you explain the three people Jesus was alleged to have physically resurrected himself or the corpses of the saints who crawled out of their graves in Matthew? If the Corinthians knew about those events, then why did they say dead bodies couldn’t be raised?
And where does Paul ever say that Jesus was an exception?
The first 150 years of Christianity (presumably 33 - 183 CE) were an era in which the Christian Church was a small sect with little or no power. The Pagan Roman authorities would not have been bothered by the Crucifixion or the fact that it happened in Jerusalem. Hell, it was they who did it and they did not care a rat’s ass about it. They crucified people all the time, all over the place, at the drop of a hat!
