Fallen and Flawed

Look at that photo and tell me he couldn’t handle that new punky 007 and Roger Moore at the same time.

Thanks Demian for the chance to be a part what you’ve created here.

Sean…Connery…James…Bond…uhhhhhhI’m a married Christian…I’m a married Christian…I’m a married Christian…

I don’t know… Sean Connery is known for mistreating women so I don’t particularly care for his acting. But aside from that the post was very interesting.
The issue of absolutism verses relativism is something I struggle with from time-to-time. I’m the kind of person who doesn’t like to cause ripples. God has been working on me with this and it is an area of my spiritual growth that needs improvement. But I think at times my fear is that I will come on too strong.
There is nothing worse than a Christian who bonks everyone within ear shot over the head with harsh truth. I think, the reason Jesus was so well admired, and why so many thousands came to hear him preach, is because he knew how to find a balance.
You’ve given me several points to ponder. Thanks!

The guy is a stud, Rob.

Sincerity: When you say “Jesus was so well admired” I wonder what you mean by that?

Not only does he present a gospel that divided [see John 6, for example, esp. the last half] but he was crucified…

Who are these people that admired him? The 12? If so, not all of them were completely on board with his program.

Jesus’ gospel was a scandal. It bonked people on the head or pierced their heart. But it was Truth.

I imagine you are referring to people who are cold and obnoxious, which I agree are not good. We must present the truth in a generous and compassionate manner. But that doesn’t promise people won’t get offended.

Good topic, Rob.

Sincerity, great point and thanks for the comment.

I agree that you can be correct about something and be a jackass about it and not have much influence on other people.

Jesus’ hard truth about the condition of our hearts is framed by his love for us in submitting to birth as a babe in a manger and dying on the cross.

Excellent post, I really enjoyed reading it.
It appears that when relativism loses, uncertainty steps in to take its place. It is as if to say, “Sure, objective truth may exist. But how can you be so certain you know it?” Then the benefits of uncertainty and the horrors of certainty are rattled off. The modern scientific community is the poster child for uncertainty: progress made by questioning everything.

This recently came up in the comment section after I wrote a post on apologetics. Still working on a will-crafted response to take the place of my sloppy thinking on the subject. Anyone have some thoughts to share?

Even during my most smug pagan days (living in a city well-known for being so open-minded its brains withered up in the heat like forgotten Play-Doh,) I could never fall in to the idea of relativism. If there was no Absolute Truth, then why were so many of the people I knew, who supposedly believed there was no Absolute Truth, spending so much of their time and money trying to find it? This included myself, who spent upwards to several thousand dollars on New Age claptrap designed not so much to enlighten me as to lighten my wallet.

The conversation piled deeper and higher at Mojo’s Daily Grind; the local hipster coffee house whose clientele was collectively unable to tie their shoes without consulting a haruspex. Imagine Babylon condensed into a 3,000-square-foot house. The chief topic of conversation was What I Believe The Truth Is, And It’s Better Than Yours. The primary sport was debate, but more often than not the two parties would simply devolve into hair-splitting…or hair-pulling.

It used to be my favorite place to hang out, as much for the good coffee as for the zoo-like atmosphere. But understanding things as I do now, I’ve been tempted to make the trip back there. I’d love to stand up in the middle of a particularly busy night and ask the crowd, “How can you say there’s no such thing as absolute truth? If you say that, then aren’t you claiming that statement’s absolutely true…?”

I’d probably be run out on a rail in a flurry of pitchforks and torches, of course. But it would still be worth dropping that stone in the stock tank, in the hopes that the saving Seed be sown.

You know, I just realized I don’t compliment the hard-working bloggers who pour their hearts out. That’s like not saying thank-you! Forgive me, everyone, I’m still being house-trained…

I suspect few people hold everything as absolutely (heh) relative.

Rob,

Love this post. Absolutely.

And I think we should definitely blame it El Nino.

Denita, I’d love to be there when you stand up and make your absolute truth statement! That was great.

And the name’s DeVeau. Richard DeVeau.

Top flight post, Rob. Many thanks. I hope many readers are both shaken and stirred…

Here’s a rim shot for everybody’s one liners: Ba dump bump clash!

Daniel, I read the post on your site and it seems to jive with what I’m reading right now, Reasonable Faith by William L Craig. First Chapter-How do we know Christianity is true?

Rob,

A truly thought-provoking piece!

You say that “Relativism really hasn’t made headway into areas where wrong beliefs have immediate consequences.” Well, your examples are not really about “wrong beliefs”. They’re about observable facts. If a supporting wall in a building is too weak, it will colapse. If you give a sick person too little medication, it might not work, if you give too much, it may be toxic. You say that these things have immediate consequences, I say that they are observable.

You also appear to claim that in religious matters absolutism defeats relativism. I beg to differ. The portrait of Jesus in the gospels is not absolutist and exclusivist, they way fundametalist Christians are, but the opposite of it. And I don’t find any of the Jesus’ supposedly exclusionary claims as the Messiah there either.

The key is in our different approaches to interpreting the Bible. Is it possible to prove that one is better than the other? I very much doubt it. One works for you and the other works for me. This way relativism (OK, call it “relative relativism”) defeats absolutims in spiritual matters too.

This is not to say that there is no objective truth. I am merely saying that both you and I hold a little piece of truth. As long as we realise it, we will respect each other’s views. But as soon as one of us takes his piece to be the whole truth, absolutism begins, and it can only lead to bigotry and dogmatism.

Jag, I think I addressed all your points in the post. Thanks for the comment.

Also, the part where you say we both hold a little piece of the truth I agree with. I don’t claim to know everything and I’m sure we’ll eventually find something you believe that’s true.

The problem is where our beliefs are mutually exclusive. It would be illogical and irrational to just avoid that and say it doesn’t matter. That doesn’t mean I have to be a punk about me being right, it just means both of us can’t be.

Not to tip my hat too much but there will be another post coming if Demian lets me about relativity in religion (pluralism). I look forward to your thoughts on that as well.

Jag: I don’t think you are paying attention. Or maybe you just don’t get it.

While, yes, you two could each hold a little bit of truth, but not if it contradicts. And that’s exactly what it does.

We say Christ is the Messiah. You say he’s not. One of us is right or both wrong. But we can’t both be right.

Rob, well written post. And the quality of the regular comments to your post and this blog in general, keep me coming back.

Perhaps this is too simple. I’m always struck by how we find very little of ‘proof’ in the scriptures. The truth is proclaimed – we accept it or reject i; we are believers or unbelievers. We are Christians or not Christians.

The power of the gospel lies in the reality that the Holy Spirit applies it to the hearts of those whom God is calling Rom 10:8-10. No clever persuasion or argument changes God’s work or man’s mind.

Demian,

Sorry to sound like an ungrateful brat, but are you sure it is not you who is not paying attention? Are you able to show me where I said that Jesus was NOT the Messiah??? I just feel that you are putting words (and your pre-conceived and unconfirmed ideas about what I believe) in my mouth. I therefore affirm once again that I DO believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I hope this ruins your ideas about me a little!

When it comes to Rob, we share some beliefs, but just becausse we do it doesn’t mean that we are both right on those points. We might both be wrong! My suggestion is that where we disagree, we disagree respectfully, without the need to consign the other person to hell. It may sometimes be a good idea to put the disagreements to rest and focus on where we agree, according to the biblical principle that whoever is not against us is with us. That is not to suggest that we forget our differences. But after some time we may discover that they go away as we gradually agree more and more. Or, that the differences remain but don’t matter much anymore.

DB, thanks for the kind words. While I completely disagree with your first paragraph I couldn’t agree more with your second paragraph. The Bible presupposes God with it’s first 4 words.

I would say re: “No clever persuasion or argument changes God’s work or man’s mind.” I agree as well but, apologetics can also be seen as a form of preaching the Word. I don’t think it’s the argument doing the work but the Holy Spirit but it might be the tool he uses. In Egypt God used the wind to bring in the locust instead of levitating each one (which he surely could have done). It’s all God’s power but reason might be the tool he uses to soften the unbeliever’s heart.

Jag, I hope my dialogue never comes across as me consigning you to hell. To paraphrase TK we both see a plate of cookies on the counter, I just happen to believe that they’re poisonous. The fact that I believe they are poisonous and if you eat them you’ll be harmed doesn’t mean I want you to eat them. The whole point of this post was that there being an ultimate truth doesn’t necessarily mean I’m correct or that I have the right to be a jerk about it. But if I really do think the cookies you’re about to eat are poisonous I have to let you know.

Rob,

I was using the phrase figuratively, without referring to you personally. Having said that, I have been consigned to hell by someone here recently already.

Your metaphor of cookies of the counter is very accurate. So you think they are poisonous, and I don’t. If I eat them and they are poisonous, I die. If I eat them and they are not poisonous, you will starve. It’s a choice with consequences. Before I eat them I will carefully consider all the arguments you can offer for poison, and then make my own informed decision. I am prepared to take the consequences. Are you saing they are poisonous because you saw someone eat them and die? Or because you had a dream? Or because you analysed their ingredients? Or perhaps because a kid in the street told you? The thing is, I will not be afraid to eat them just because you are. This is not to say your intentions are bad, it’s just that not to eat them I have to internalise your convicions first.

What if another scenario is just better: there are not just cookies on the counter. There is also pizza, salad, curry and Thai noodles. You and I are free to eat what we choose and nothing is poisonous. We will both be full at the end, although what you and I choose may not be equally nutritious. What do you think?

Jag,

What if another scenario is just better: there are not just cookies on the counter. There is also pizza, salad, curry and Thai noodles. You and I are free to eat what we choose and nothing is poisonous. We will both be full at the end, although what you and I choose may not be equally nutritious. What do you think?

Sure that would be another point of view. But if I said there’s no pizza or cookies on the counter then we both can’t be right.

True,

But this is not about being either or, wrong or right. Since no human can grasp the totality of the Holy, we are bound to be a little right and a little wrong at the same time. Therefore we can only talk about who is more right that the other one…

Unless our opinions are mutually exclusive. To think otherwise would be illogical.

Jesus Christ was literally raised from the dead.
Jesus Christ wasn’t literally raised from dead.

Was he a little bit raised from the dead? Only a little bit Jesus Christ? A little bit raised? A little bit dead?
Some religious absolutes are simple: Was he, or wasn’t he?

Tolerance, great. Acceptance of differences, awesome. But complete denial of absolutes, self-defeating.

Admitting there is such a thing as the “truth” doesn’t prove what that truth is – our mere belief does not make it so. But if we feel we have reason to believe that Truth matters (i.e. that there are undesirable consequences for wrong belief) it is logical for us to want, and try, to believe rightly. It may even result in us caring about what others believe.

Again, we could be wrong. But either – Jesus was raised and it matters to believe so (Romans 10:9), Jesus was raised and it doesn’t matter, Jesus wasn’t raised and it matters to believe so, or Jesus wasn’t raised and it doesn’t matter if you believe so.

Was he, or wasn’t he? Does it matter which we agree with?
Both require us to “pick” a stance. Both are mutually exclusive. If we pick one, we are either right or wrong.

Our professing belief in one of these doesn’t make it true, but at least it’s intellectually honest.

(NB. The final option is, ‘I don’t know, and I don’t know if it matters’. But really, that’s the scariest/most dangerous option – because it means you spend life waiting to find out, and knowing their could be consequences…Seems a bit more sensible to investigate while we still can, yes?)

Rob,

It would take an absolute #$&%@ to be absolutely wrong on everything! And our opinions are not (in my opinion) mutually exclusive. In fact, there are quite a few things we agree on.

Alyssa,

Remove the word “literally” from your question, and the absolutism fades away a bit. And since the Bible never uses the word “literally” either, it is more legitimate to ask without it too.

Jesus did not teach “undesirable consequences for wrong belief”. He did though teach undesirable consequences for wrong actions. Which is why, to me, where warranted it is not a problem to admit that there are many things I don’t know and I don’t know if they matter. Not scary at all.

Jag, I apologize if I put words into your mouth, but define “Jesus is the Messiah” for me.

Demian: Hm. I think I wasn’t clear about my thoughts. When I said Jesus was well admired I was not speaking about the pharisees or those who yelled “crucify him.” Actually I think the words “well admired” were not the right choice but its done now so I’ll attempt to clarify myself.

I whole-heartily agree that Jesus was controversial. No question. But he was also loved and no, not just by the disciples. I too know that Judas betrayed him.

I am speaking about how Jesus was invited to eat with sinners. Remember Zachias? I am speaking about how children were not frightened to be with him. Remember how Jesus used children as an example to the disciples in Matthew 10:5 + Mark 10:14-16 ? And what about the boy who brought to him his small lunch of fish and loaves? Or his discussion with Nicodemus?

Jesus was amongst the people, getting involved in their lives and meeting them where they were. He spoke truth which was uncomfortable at times. But he never used the truth to make people feel small.

Thank you for reminding me, in your own words and through God’s (John 6,) that at times offending people is unavoidable. And I think at times speaking truth, despite the “consequences,” is one of the greatest proofs of our love and faith in God.

Sincerity, well said. Very well said, indeed. Thank you for clarifying. That makes more sense.

I do have to disagree with this statement: “He never used the truth to make people feel small.”

I think that’s exactly what he did with it. If you mean by “small” of course “conviction of sin, sense of brokenness and recognition of a desperate need of a savior” he indeed did that. Quite a bit. And as it should.

Granted, he never let the person who surrendered their life to him remain in that “condemnation.” And I think that’s what you mean. Am I close?

He was gracious to the humbled adulteress because she knew she was condemned. And he told her “Go. Sin no more.”

And Zacherias was a good example, too, as you pointed out. His genuine humility was on display when he vowed to repay any wrongs he caused.

You’re right, he never belittled those who looked to him for help…indeed, this is what makes being a Christian so sweet, that the enormous power and wrath of the holy and just creator of the universe is restrained and instead love is poured out on the repentant sinner. Think Prodigal son, right? Appreciate you Sincerity.

Demian: Do you mean Zacchaeus?

Denita: Zacchaeus. Yes, indeed. That’s who I meant. My apologies.

Demian: LOL, if it wasn’t you it would be me instead!

Jag,

It really feels like your missing my point by focusing on irrelevancies…

I insert “literally” into that phrase only to clarify the difference between belief that he was “metaphorically” raised (which to me seems to require some very bizarre Biblical interpretation, but we’ll get to that later) and the belief that he was physically raised to life from death – i.e. “literally”. Not as a direct scripture quote.
Virtually all denominations (I’d even go as far to say all except the most liberal, which is unsurprisingly related to this very debate), including some of the most rejected areas of Christianity (Mormonism, Jehova’s Witness), profess belief in the literal death and resurrection of Christ. They therefore would see any other view (metaphorical or otherwise) is incompatible (as either, he was raised or he wasn’t).
The argument however was never which is true, but simply to point out that if he was physically raised from the dead, he was not also not physically raised from the dead.

If one believes Christ truly died and then was brought back to life (i.e. to was no longer dead), they find it hard to see how that is compatible with a belief that says otherwise. If someone holds an absolute belief (no matter whether it is correct or not), pointing out that they COULD hold a more “relative” one does nothing to change the exclusivity of their belief, because they do not hold that relative belief. Thus an example of absolutism that is not reduced to relativism just because it cannot be proven as “true” either way.

But really, are you trying to argue that the biblical authors do not profess a belief in the literal resurrection of Christ? Whether or not they use the word “literally”, is it not clear from context, language and the numerous ways in which the event is described and referred too that a literal resurrection was what they had in mind? I mean, many people would say that were wrong in that belief, but very few would argue that they never held it.

I think it’s best I let you answer that question before I dive into yet another essay-length tirade! So, your thoughts –

What do you believe the Bible have to say about the death and resurrection of Christ?
What, in general, did the authors such as Paul seem to believe happened/what do they profess the significance of Jesus being “raised” from the dead to be?

If you believe they only intended it to be taken metaphorically – that they did not believe Jesus had been killed or had come back from the dead and appeared alive again – where do you derive that belief from – and what do you think about the many verses that suggest otherwise? And, what do you think the metaphorical meaning is?

(Or alternatively, do you simply think they were mistaken/making it up – and if so why?)

Maybe you’re on the fence, but the problem is when such a concept has so much biblical testimony towards it, underlies so much of the NT in general, and so much riding on it in terms of it’s greater significance, ignorance seems unfounded. Because remember, I’m not asking you if you think it is true or not right now – but rather, did they say it was? Is there good reason to think that they meant otherwise?

Demian,

The words “messiah” (from Hebrew) and “christ” from Greek, as I am sure you know, mean the same thing – “the annointed”. Mainly two categories of people were annointed in the ancient Hebrew society – monarchs and high priests. In both cases this symbollised a special mission from God. Jesus was neither an earthly monarch or priest, therefore calling him a messiah or christ means attributing him with a special spiritual role.

Incidentally, the Bible calls Cyrus, the king of Persia a messiah too (Isa. 45:1), but that does not mean that I deem him to be equal to Jesus.

Alyssa,

I do not see any thing bizarre about interpreting the Bible metaphorically. I do have huge problems taking it literally though. In fact, I think literalism kills the spirit of the Bible and often (not always) reduces it to the absurd. Metaphorical reading makes it alive and relevant to our times.

When you say that Jesus was literally resurrected, you are not saying what the Bible says. You are already interpreting the Bible. And you cannot expect everyone to interpret it the same way as you (unless propose a set of rules that are acceptable to everyone).

As for the authors of the Bible and resurrection, if you read the texts in chronological order, you will see how the tradition developed. Paul (the oldest source) appears to have believed in resurrection, but not a bodily one. He also does not mention the empty tomb and the like – he probably never heard of the story, as it is a much later tradition. He basically says that Jesus died and was raised and vindicated by God. He also says that many experienced his presence after the crucifiction – without explaning how. Mark (the oldest gospels) suggest a resurrection, but does not explain it either. He just breaks off his narrative saying that the women at the tomb fled and said nothing to anyone! Not surprisingly, as the resurrection tradition grew, later generations of Christians were troubled by Mark’s story, so they added the “longer ending”, which is totally apocryphal and rarely included in modern Bibles. Basically, the later the story, the more ornamented and miraculous it is. And neither Paul nor Mark were eyewitnesses of Jesus! I have no doubt that what they described as resurrection was a powerful spiritual experience, so powerful that they struggled to find words to describe. But I would not make a dogma out of it.

I already pointed out elsewhere that Paul believed that resurrection already started. Either he was totally mistaken, or what he meant was not a bodily resurrection. The mistake we often make is that we read the Bible – essentially a pre-modern text – as if it was a modern text. When something is described there, it does not necessarily mean that those who wrote it believed in it. And even if they believed it, doesn’t mean it was literally true. The line between the literal and metaphorical is often blurred. Take the text about the devil leading Jesus on the high mountain to show him all the kingdoms of the world. Which mountain is high enough? The story certainly presupposed a flat earth, does it mean we have believe in a flat earth today? Or maybe the story is metaphorical after all, even though it is narrated as an actual event?

Thanks Jag.

Hi Jag,

Thought I should quickly say that I am planning to reply to this as soon as I can, just have had no time to be on here in the last couple of days sorry.
Just incase you were wondering
Will try get it done tonight – which given the massive time zone difference is actually your tomorrow…

More delayed than I intended, but here we go…

Quite obviously your belief in this matter stems from your presupposition regarding the nature of the Bible and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in informing right belief – i.e. the importance of rationality and experience in deciding what should be taken literally. Those who view the collection of writings as complementary rather than contradictory will obviously come to different conclusions from the various references to the Resurrection of Christ – in this approach, rationality and experience help inform what the literal meaning is.

The latter way of thinking results in compiling the different accounts and discussions of the Resurrection in the NT in order to form a multifaceted understanding of the concept. When we have multiple verses, passages and chapters that repeat and elaborate upon the same idea, it becomes easier to draw a conclusion about what that idea is – this is how doctrines are formed.
Contrastingly, your belief in that some accounts reflect later “additions” to the Resurrection story, results in focusing on some passages over others – concluding that what “isn’t” said in some accounts supports your belief, and that accounts that apparently contradict this belief are “metaphorical” or “later developments”.

Because of these differences, I know my pointing out the reasons for belief in a literal resurrection will do little to convince you, but I will nonetheless explain my view.

You argue that Paul does not support belief in bodily resurrection.
However, to argue that he never “heard the story” because he doesn’t mention it, is the fallacy of an “argument from silence” – it is illogical to believe that when someone does not attest to something (where not specifically asked to) it is a sign of ignorance.
All of Paul’s letters are written to a particular audience for a particular reason. None of these letters are written as testimonies to the life, death and teaching of Jesus. They are not evangelical in nature. They are written to those who already know about Christ, who already follow him, who have already “heard the story”. There is little reason in the context of these letters to describe the “empty tomb” as where Paul does refer to the resurrection he does it to support his argument or point, which is not to prove that Christ really did “rise from the dead”.

What Paul does say:

“…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…” (1 Cor 15:3-4)

Obviously even Paul had heard that much of the story – Jesus died, was buried, was raised on the “third day” and “appeared” to numerous people, including Paul himself (1 Cor 15:5-8).

Whilst Paul does not go into much detail about these appearances here (Acts does, but I already know that’ll be on the metaphorical list!) he does say:
“The gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”(Gal 1:11)
The gospel (which in 1 Corinthians 15 he reiterates as being the truth of Christ’s death and resurrection) he did not hear from a man, but directly from Jesus Christ – whatever his appearance “looked like” it was literal enough to convert and convey the gospel to Paul.

Paul also has a developed theology of the significance of this resurrection:
The resurrection of general humanity – of those with faith – is reliant on the truth of his resurrection. The forgiveness of sin and overcoming of death was achieved by his being raised. (15:12-21)

Paul emphasises the connection between “resurrection of the dead” and his being raised “from the dead” – they have the same meaning – if the dead are not “raised” then Christ is also not “raised” (15:13, 16). In the same way that Christ was raised Paul teaches the dead will also be raised – and this is not something that causes hope for “this life” but for what comes after it (1 Cor 15:19).

Paul does not here teach that this general resurrection is occurring now, but rather “when he comes” – in the Parousia and that then the “end” will come. In other words, he affirms an end-time resurrection. (What were those verses you referred to again? I’m sure I pointed out my problems with them being understood that way the last time…)

Now just to clarify, when I speak of a literal resurrection, I don’t mean that the resurrected form or body is not different to the current one – but that whatever the resurrected state, it is an actual, conscious, tangible one – the person exists after death.
If there is any doubt to Paul’s belief in a “substantial” resurrection in which the person exists after death, he clears this up in the rest of chapter 15 (vv35-55). The dead will be raised in an “imperishable” “immortal” “spiritual” form – it is this that was achieved in through Christ, it is this hope that overcomes the “sting” of death, it is post-death inheritance that Paul preaches (not only, but in this passage) – a futile hope if resurrection is metaphorical and for “this life”.
He says a similar thing in Philippians 3 – “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who…will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (vv20-21)

So yes, I think Paul believed in a literal resurrection.

“we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or grieve like the rest of men who have no hope…Jesus died and rose again so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep…and so we will be with the Lord for ever.” (Thessalonians 4:13-18)

His believing it does not make it “literally true” but if we are interested in a “Bible-based” belief rather than “self-based”, then we should be taking note of what the Biblical authors said, not just what we wish they had said or what they didn’t say. (If we are not – that’s fine, but it makes it hard to debate Christianity!)

Now whilst it may be of little use in that you may dismiss these as later (or deem metaphorical) additions to what you feel is the true story, I will just add a few of where the rest of the traditional concept comes from (for those who take the complementary approach).

“Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Luke 24:37-38

He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Matthew 28:6-7

”.. .put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” Acts 2:23-24

“he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. (Said in comparison to David who “died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day”) Acts 2:31-32 .

“From that time on Jesus began to explain that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Matthew 16:21

“He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and that he must be killed and after three days rise again” Mark 8:31

And he said, “The Son of Man must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” Luke 9:22
“But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.” Mark 14:28

And the “shorter” ending of Mark:
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
Jesus is no longer in the tomb, his body is gone, he is “risen” as he said he would – and he will meet them in Galilee.

Slightly more than a suggestion?

Alyssa,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

While you are right that a lot depends on whether we treat the biblical books as complimetary or contradictory. I treat them as both. The trouble with taking them just complimentary is that it is impossible to do so without violating the texts.

Question is – does the Bible have any absolutist claims for itsef? Simple answer is no. It was those who trying to impose some kind of magical meaning on it that also make such claims. But they do not have the support of the Bible itself.

Why is an argument from silence a fallacy? It’s impossible to mention something you are not aware of. And there is a good case that Paul was not aware of many things we find in the gospels (and all were written much later). A clear pattern emerges when you read the NT not the way it is arranged in your Bible, but in the order of books being written. Paul knows rather little about historical Jesus, and he doesn’t focus on him, because he focuses instead of the cosmic Christ. And then, the later the book, the richer the imagery and theology. Why? Because the time elapsed from historical Jesus enabled the early churches to develop their theologies. I use a plural form, because there was a variety of theologies – some complementary, some contradictory, right from the beginning. When you say that Paul wrote to those who already “knew the story” of Jesus, you are partially right, but you avoid stating which story they knew. The one from Mark? Or John? Or some other? I think what they knew was “the gospel according to Paul”, not any of the 4 gospels in our NT canon. Of course, Paul believed in a resurrection, and believed that he received his gospel in a vision. It appears that the vision did not include the virgin birth and flight to Egypt, for instance, as well as many other stories added later.

I do not agree with you that Paul is talking about a future resurrection only. It is quite clear that he believes that resurrection already started with Jesus (1 Cor 15:20)- he uses present tense! Matt 27:52-53 expresses the same belief – resurrected saints came to Jerusalem after the resurrection of Jesus (even though, technically, they were themselves resurrected BEFORE Jesus, and the text implies that they were hiding in their graves waiting for the resurrected Jesus to emerge first). So where are those resurrected saints now? Paul believed that return of Christ would occur during his lifetime, so a general resurrection would take time, and it would make sense to imagine that it started already.

I do not doubt Paul’s profound experience of the Holy. I do not doubt that he had “visions” (though I do not claim to know their nature). And he interpreted them in the light of his Pharisaic tradition. No doubt if he had been a Sadducee, he would be teaching something else and not resurrection. How much of a dogma do we make of it? Paul also taught of “3 heavens” (2 Cor 12:2). Why? Becaus of his tradition! Do you also believe in 3 heavens? If so, what are they? After all, they are mentioned in an “inerrant” Bible… And, do you really rejoice when those close to you die (and thus follow Paul’s command)?

The quotations you provide are all valid, but each of them is a topic for a separate discussion…

Let me refer you to 1 Cor 15 again, where in v. 39-44 Paul in no uncertain terms states that our physical body is like a seed – it must be sown (buried, and presumably decomposed) to “germinate”. A different body is resurrected – spiritual, not natural (physical). The resurrected body is not of “flesh and blood” (v. 30)! Therefore a belief in a resurrection of Jesus does not exclude the possibility that his naturaly body simply decomposed in the grave. As you may know, it was almost impossible to give a condemned criminal a proper burial – their bodies were often left on crosses to decompose, or thrown in a mass grave, and many historical Jesus scholars believe that the story of Joseph of Arimathea and his grave given over to Jesus does not reflect historical reality.

So was Jesus’ resurrected body of flesh and blood as later gospels suggest (John 20:20,27, Luke 24:39,43, or quite the opposite as Paul taught? You can’t have it both ways, unles you violate the texts. As you see, you do not have a Bible-based belief, but a variety of Bible-based propositions to choose and believe (or not). Those texts are far from complimentary. What it the solution? Those who stick to literalist approach have little to offer except dogma that they cannot explain, and they are afraid to ask honest questions. I humbly offer that the historical-metaphorical approach I propose removes the problem.

I’m feeling that fundamental road-block again…

It’s tempting to semi-repeat myself in terms of addressing a few points you’ve made here (for instance, that the belief that Jesus was the beginning of the resurrection is incompatible with belief that the “rest” of the resurrection will come at his return, and the expectation that Paul should be expected to have discussed the “flight to Egypt” when discussing circumcision, spiritual gifts, or any in the context of any of the purposes of his letters)

However, as is probably apparent to you too it would be a little bit futile, as there is way too much incompatibility underlying our discussions for such a debate to ever end.

So, a slightly different approach:
In what way do you believe your approach to be less problematic?

I’ve tried to get at this before without much success – If Paul was wrong, the gospels “much later” and inaccurate on many points, nothing exists from eyewitnesses, most of what they wrote they probably didn’t mean literally, references to what Jesus did, said, and what happened to his body contradictory and made up (or not a “historical reality”) – what reason do you have to see yourself as a “Christian” at all?

Even if some of Jesus teachings made it through unpolluted (and in your way of thinking, those who conveyed them seem to make pretty unreliable sources) you have suggested previously that there is nothing “new” as such in his morals etc.

So what is so special about Jesus, in your view, that you would label your belief system after those who followed him?
What do you actually believe about Jesus –given that your belief system relies on an errant, limited, metaphorical Bible from people with contradictory stories who never knew Jesus directly?

The problem you see with my approach, is that you cannot see how some concepts fit together, and how a unified understanding can be formed from the contradictions you see.

The problem I see with yours is that it results in nothingness. It does away with everything that has defined what it is to be “Christian”, the most significant (and therefore, most undisputed traditionally and inter-denominationally) beliefs about the person and work of Christ. It concludes that we know very little about the real Jesus, as all those who we know professed to follow and know about him (from the NT to early Christian writers) were mistaken. It creates Jesus in our image – what we want him to be and say.
All that is left are some quaint quotations about loving ones neighbour and tolerance from someone who can never really be known.

Which results in my confusion as to why you’re interested in this Jesus at all.

This is my new favorite comment: What Alyssa said.

Well said, Alyssa. Well said, indeed.

Alyssa,

I find a liberal approach to be less problematic for two reasons:

- theologically, it explains the gradual, evolutionary development of early Christianity and explains the inconsistencies in NT writings;

- in terms of practical living and ethics it disposes of the exclusivistic claims espoused by fundamentalist/conservative Christianity (which just like fundamentalist Islam or Hinduism is not something I could follow).

As a result, I find it as much better reflecting the teaching of Jesus found in the early Christian sources.

Does it mean that I do not have any problems then? No, not at all, but like you say this approach, in my opinion, is LESS problematic.

The reason why I choose Jesus as my spiritual hero and Christ is not that I am afraid of his wrath. It is also not that I hope for a reward. I find his teaching so compelling that even if there should be nothing apart from the material world, I would still choose to follow him. In fact, if the world leaders and communities followed him, we would have no hunger on our planet and there would be no wars and poverty. He gave us an example of how to live, and I believe that his vision is not utopian but realistic. And even if the world leaders won’t adopt his teaching, it still works for me and sets me free in my spiritual quest. I would not convert to Christianity if I had been born in the Buddhist tradition. But since my tradition is Christian, I find that there is no need for me to work outside its framework. Yes, many early Christian writers were mistaken about Jesus – at least partly. You and I are not an exception either. But I do have a friend who is fascinated with Jesus even though he is a complete atheist! Is there any wonder that just like my ancestors in faith I feel I must admit that “Jesus is Messiah” and “God was in Christ”?

I enjoyed lurking through all of the above. It’s particularly interesting that I think Jag’s logic is sound (and I haven’t seen it refuted) but the same logic (as DM/Alyssa suggest) leads me to atheism.

My 3rd way is to say that I agree with Jag that the books of the Bible are not consistent unless you twist them… but I agree with others that this leaves you no reason to believe in the God of the Bible.

Thank you all for the interesting comments!

On the OT, I think that absolutism is better when dealing with facts, while relativism is better when dealing with opinions or beliefs.

Alyssa,

I have been reading your posts here and on other topics on this blog and I want to tell you how much I admire your insight, patience, and spiritual and intellectual integrity as you debate Jag and others.

I’m not sure if you have been viewing some of the other conversations going on here, but it would appear that you and I have come to the same conclusions and road blocks, only I think you’ve done so more elegantly.

I believe Paul summed up my feelings best when he wrote: “I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge…”

Thank you for what you’ve added here. I feel honored to call you my sister.

Richard, when I read our sister’s comments, I too feel honoured that God has given here the grace and intellect to defend the faith in the manner she has.

For myself, I dropped out of this debate for three reasons.

1. Intellectually, I am no match for the likes of Jag.

2. Attempting to ‘carry the torch of faith’ at this level would do a disservice to the cause of Christ.

3.Most importantly, even if I were capable of doing so, it would be pointless. My experience has taught me that people like Jag are not convinced by clever intellectual argument. His participation in this debate is not an honest searching for the truth, but rather an forum to display his intellect. Arguing with him is not engaging his soul – that he has locked away in vault of his own intellectual creation. Only the Holy Spirit can unlock it, if that is His wont. I’ll pray for him and his type – leaving the rest up to God.

I nearly just cried! Haha.
Richard (and others) your sentiments are very much appreciated .

Jag, I appreciate the honesty of your responses and I can (at least partially) understand where you are coming from. In sum, I value your desire to look for the “good” in any teaching and belief system – the ideas that appeal to you reveal compassion toward humanity.

As you know, I cannot help feeling and believing differently in many areas – especially when it comes to understanding what can be perceived as contradictions in the Bible (I believe the limitations rest on our side, and that context and rationality do much to explain, reconcile and overcome these areas of doubt – hence I have much appreciation for the fields of Theology and Apologetics). This basic difference in belief in the nature and purpose of the Bible, I think, results in most of our other differences.

On a more personal level, I am increasingly convinced through experience of the truth of the good news that I received – that God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
There is head knowledge, and their is heart knowledge – and my faith proceeds from both.
Thus I hope to forever say that ‘The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me’

Don B: That was a great bullet list. I’m stealing it.

I enjoyed lurking through all of the above. It’s particularly interesting that I think Jag’s logic is sound (and I haven’t seen it refuted) but the same logic (as DM/Alyssa suggest) leads me to atheism.

On the OT, I think that absolutism is better when dealing with facts, while relativism is better when dealing with opinions or beliefs.

Fropome, I always appreciate what you add here.

I’m curious what you think Jag’s logic is. Not to put words in his mouth but he’s fairly relativistic and that was what I was trying to show the folly of here in this post.

I agree that preference can be subjective but less so about beliefs. I.e. I believe that Jesus died and was resurrected three days later. That statement is absolutely true or not. It can’t be both.

[...] we all have commitments and can never declare strict objectivity in our arguments, but it became quite clear in the first class that the professor wanted nothing more than to [...]

[...] Absolutism [What You Need to Know--and Why] Is truth absolute? Or is it relative and merely based on personal preferences? There has to be a right answer, right? There is. [...]