I have heard some Christians say that if we ever had the technology to travel through time and went back to the time of the supposed resurrection and did not witness the events as they are "inconsistently" recorded they would still believe in the resurrection.
Without the resurrection there would be no Christian religion!!
I wish to point out, a few matters which are most secure in understanding, and which are determined by not only biblical textual sources, but supported by archaeological studies as well.
Pre-Exilic Judaism, especially, did not see this resurrection tenet as being anything other that of the body and person as they were (meaning in the normal fleshly fashion). The early Christian movement held that same tenet as well. We can see from early textual content (espcially Papias) that it had been held that Yeshua had raised a number of people from the state of having been dead, and that a few of his followers had too. It could be imagined, from the wording, that it had been about as common as heart transplants today.
However, it must always be kept in mind (because it is a simply fact of early Christian doctrine and teaching) that the Christian resurrection was absolutely, and directly tied in with, the second coming--parousia. At the time when Yeshua would return (in the role as the king of YHWH's new kingdom set up to rule and judge over the entire world), the resurrection would happen. Afterwards, we can think (though it's not as sure and concrete an assertion) that they thought there would be a second death after a thousand years.
The fact that the second coming was a falsehood, the resurrection that was to come with it was a falsehood. Neither events were real, actual history (and never will be). We must always keep in mind, that to alter our understanding of what 'resurrection' may mean, is to discard or reject exactly what it actually was to those who came up with the idea in Judaism; and carried it over to Christianity. The resurrection was to be a real, physical 'standing again' of the person who had died, not any mental or 'spiritual' shift or something. The only thinkable execption might be said to be those who would be among the elect to rule with the messiah in the heavens.
Regardless of how we may alter, adjust, and re-interpret the database, to do so is to reject the database. Then, we can reason that by rejecting the database, we have made the assertion that the database was incorrect; thus false. If we hold that a direct and physical resurrection to occur with and at the coming of the messiah within the bounds of the generation living in the year 33 CE was false, then there is no reason at all to reason that any simple adjustment of what had been believed, and taught then, would be a truth of nature...because it is still rooted in that database which we have declared false.
Yeshua, as a side note here, most likely did not go around teaching or even insinuating that he was YHWH. In other words, there was no 'I am god,' nor 'Yeshua is god,' talk in that day and age. That kind of stuff came later, and after the Greek influence became overwhelmingly strong enough to push the original Jewish base out of the picture.
I read your opening post, and gathered that it was attempting to provide proof of whether or not God is responsible for the entire message therein, through conduit or directly. I haven't had time to read all posts today - So I may be mistaken? Ignore this if so... My friend and I have been discussing Colossians 2:14 of late, and he, being thoroughly devout, has searched all avenues, in pursuit of understanding. It has revealed that, indeed, a portion of the bible has been written by man (mainly leviticus), with no intervention by God, there present.
Like I say - I may well be off-point on this, but, time permitting, maybe you could elaborate on what this verse means to you.
Thank you, KJ. have a great day. And I'm sorry if I'm out of sync with this thread. I will catch up tomorrow.
The role of bodily resurrection and even the entire question of life after death was never as settled in Jewish tradition as you imply. Among many other differences between the pharisees and the sadducees was a difference in belief in life after death. The entire question of final judgement, life after death, heaven and hell has no clear cut authoritarian tradition or answer in Jewish theology even to this day.
I fail to see how you can claim the book of Leviticus the word of man and not the word of God, I'd like you to explain your reasons.
It's in Leviticus 19:18 that we read, " Love your neighbour as yourself " I think this is the first time we come across it in the Bible. This then becomes one of the main themes of Gods message and by the time we get to Galations 5:14 we read " The entire law is summed up in a single command: " Love your neighbour as yourself."
Everything hangs of this law, surely its the law of God, not of man.
I've just today been discussing this with my good friend, and he doesn't like it one bit (The fact that God is not entirely present in the biblical text). But he says that - Paul is talking about putting to one side the handwriting of men and concentrating on what is given by God - And goes on to say that God is responsible, indeed, for the moral message, but that He has no part in the procedures of "men". He then directed me to Colossians 2: 20-22. and it all made sense..
Let me know how you percieve these texts, if you don't mind, of course?
Well there are lots of religions founded on charismatic figures who did not claim to be god in the flesh not did they bodily rise from the grave after death.
Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. So I think one is overstating the case.
Not really, St. Paul himself noted that the Resurrection is key to the Christian faith, or else we might as well sing today for tomorrow we die.
It might be key, but there is nothing that provides any proof that it actually occurred. It is one of complete acceptance without evidence.
Not even the biblical accounts of the event are concise. They each have different details and some are almost complete contradictions. Clearly that if the writers couldn't get the details correct then it calls into question if the event even took place.
Even if there was no proof, the resurrection still lays at the very heart of the Christian faith. This is really only negated by fringe elements of the Christian tradition.
I suppose I'm a fringe element, because I think the resurrection is symbolic. :flowers:
Well the Gospels are first-hand accounts written decades after Christ's death. So on that account alone, certain "contradictions" are going to be found, hence why it has been important to have several accounts of Christ's life as opposed to merely one. This is also why scriptures has often been seen as "inspired" literature, rather than the literal incarnate word of God(as Muslims see the Koran for example).
I read your opening post, and gathered that it was attempting to provide proof of whether or not God is responsible for the entire message therein, through conduit or directly.
If it didn't happen, the last thing you would really want to do is going around saying that it did. Early Christians really had nothing to gain by saying so. Not just with the resurrection, but even the virgin birth of Jesus.
Maybe, you do follow Blake after all.
To see the resurrection as purely symbolic however does negate Christ's historical being, which in turn negates the incarnation. That has deep implications for the Christian tradition.