Resurrection: Does Your Minister/Church Preach What You Believe?

[Seeler]

I'm not entirely sure, but it is more metaphorical than historical, in my mind.



My beloved rev does a startlingly good balancing act meeting the needs of the widest variety possible of congregants.



If I were in a congregation where I felt uncomfortable about attending what are, arguably, the two most important services in the Christian calendar, I'm pretty sure I'd be congregation-shopping.

More and more often I find you saying almost exactly what I believe before I have put my thoughts into words.

 

[Luce NDs]

"I believe Jesus rose physically, in a new body and the he now sits at the right hand of the Power who is God"

If God is love is this all for nothing ... non-sense as my grandfather said ... a temporal insubstantial creation that is time vaporizes ... like water in du seas ... thus the seizing nature ... of the rye beast the man falls for ... and often knows nothing as consequence ...

You have a rite to it and we have our wits tu it also ... living in a gritty surrounding of folks that grate on one another ... fluidized combustion? Flints and ferrites will do it ... in the distance cackling .. from those half cocked at the scene ... literary gesture related to gests ... devices left alone? Sah-Tyre ...

Would amen in such condition know sooth ... thus hated soothsayers in the biblical legend ... a'myth of differing perspectives ... a good lyre will do ...

 

[Seeler]

Do any of you consider yourself Christian and a follower of Jesus but interpret the resurrection to have more of a metaphorical meaning or even a different kind of resurrection?(eg. spiritual only, etc) Is Jesus the son of God or a son of God? Is there support for your particular viewpoint within the Bible or other sources?

Yes to part of your question - I consider myself a Christian and a follower of Jesus.
Ummm - to 'a metaphorical meaning'? Perhaps more than a metaphorical meaning - but no, I don't believe that Jesus' physical body rose to life on Easter morning and walked oout of the tomb.
Yes, Jesus is God's beloved son. The Spirit of God dwelt (dwells) in Jesus, and shines through.
Yes, my viewpooint is supported within the Bible. I don't generally proof text - but for those who need chapter and verse, check out the post resurrection stories of Jesus' appearances to believers. In every one that I can remember Jesus seems to appear and disappear into thin air. Can a physical body do that?

 

[Luce NDs]

Jesus

Mind your tongue that is an unfound metaphor ... we seem still in the dark phased condition ... given what we really know!

"What is truth?" Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people and told them, "He is not guilty of any crime.

John 18:38

The Romans like industrialists like a good lyre to put as Buzz on the ADs ... like the noble beast is good for you! After that your's crewed ...

 

[Luce NDs]

and a Big AMEN to that !

A literal believe among other things ... pools of misundertood's ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Do any of you consider yourself Christian and a follower of Jesus but interpret the resurrection to have more of a metaphorical meaning or even a different kind of resurrection?(eg. spiritual only, etc) Is Jesus the son of God or a son of God? Is there support for your particular viewpoint within the Bible or other sources?

As a follower of lighter trends of learning through myth, story and ballad ... I continue the whine ... sort of simulating a whisper in the willows ... thus the 4 winds blow as horsemen ...

 

[Jae]

Yes to part of your question - I consider myself a Christian and a follower of Jesus.
Ummm - to 'a metaphorical meaning'? Perhaps more than a metaphorical meaning - but no, I don't believe that Jesus' physical body rose to life on Easter morning and walked oout of the tomb.
Yes, Jesus is God's beloved son. The Spirit of God dwelt (dwells) in Jesus, and shines through.
Yes, my viewpooint is supported within the Bible. I don't generally proof text - but for those who need chapter and verse, check out the post resurrection stories of Jesus' appearances to believers. In every one that I can remember Jesus seems to appear and disappear into thin air. Can a physical body do that?

Jesus could.

 

[Luce NDs]

Jesus is the Son of God. Jesus is God. Yes, there is support.

Can love cause sickness ... as the love sick loosing all evidence of knowledge and wisdom? What a groove to be caught in ... OA-sis?

 

[Luce NDs]

both versions cant be true

Have it your way .. leave the alternates alone .. while they ponder ... don't bother them with God just now ... tis devil of a Job to think when love haunts as sol ...

 

[Luce NDs]

It does not say anything about the actual moment of resurrection. What was it actually like when Jesus arose. Hoe exactly did God accomplish this? What did Jesus feel, see, experience as life returned to his body? It tells us that an empty tomb was discovered and that after that the disciples encountered Jesus alive.


I assume that it means that this was the moment at which he believed in what Jesus had taught him about the Son of Man being raised from the dead. What we see in the Gospels is that the disciples became very upset with Jesus when he spoke about his pending death, suggesting that they weren't even willing to think about resurrection. This was a sort of "Oh! Now I get it!" moment.



John 20:9 is an interesting verse indeed. Most translators and commentators that I'm familiar with take that verse in the sense of not understanding the Scripture rather than not knowing it, but it still begs the question: what Scripture? By the time John wrote Christian Scripture was still largely undefined and in flux, with different Christian communities having different "canons." I've discussed the development of the Christian canon before, so don't propose to go into it again here, except to say that "Scripture" today (in mainline Protestant churches at least) is the 66 books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. There's lots of Scripture there that talks about the resurrection - but none that "describe" it in the sense I'm meaning that I'm aware of. If by "Scripture" you mean extrabiblical writings, I'm still not aware of an account of the actual moment of resurrection.

To me, it seems perhaps more likely that the point in John 20:9 was that the disciples hadn't understand from prophecy (ie, the Old Testament) or perhaps from the words of Jesus (by the time John was written, it's likely that the synoptic Gospels at least had been accorded sort of "quasi-canonical" status) that this was going to happen. Not entirely clear, though, what "Scripture" he is referring to.

Fits in with that transcendent mediational moment causing some to think over the enigma ... and the Shadow of that doubt collapsed in some sols ... Tome-as a burying place for sooths that couldn't be told for fear of the Go'd Ease Ure ... Caesar for shortened by the editing? It can be seen if you follow the evolution of word as dizzying ... vert-egos? ET ... upstanding pass ...

Separated individualizing of sols allows time to ponder consequences of putting it all together ... for then you may well be put down ... to become a spirit rising as a whisp from a well ... breaks and holes are as good as a change and rearrangement of genes ... djinns!

 

[Luce NDs]

Yes to part of your question - I consider myself a Christian and a follower of Jesus.
Ummm - to 'a metaphorical meaning'? Perhaps more than a metaphorical meaning - but no, I don't believe that Jesus' physical body rose to life on Easter morning and walked oout of the tomb.
Yes, Jesus is God's beloved son. The Spirit of God dwelt (dwells) in Jesus, and shines through.
Yes, my viewpooint is supported within the Bible. I don't generally proof text - but for those who need chapter and verse, check out the post resurrection stories of Jesus' appearances to believers. In every one that I can remember Jesus seems to appear and disappear into thin air. Can a physical body do that?

Fits in with definition of "essence"! Some integration required ...

And delight assists vegetation for a bit ... that transcendent incident ... allowing one a temporary drift into abstract ... a darker hue! Lenard said ...

 

[revjohn]

its one or the other, both cant be true

Well, yes and no.

The scriptural record is clear that the resurrection was a physical event. Whether or not one decides to take those scriptures at face value is another matter.

Jesus being both a spirtual and physical being (both God and Human) cannot be raised (I believe) in part. A whole resurrection would require a spiritual and physical resurrection.

The account of Thomas not believing until he himself is able to put a finger in the wounds of Christ's hands and his hand in the wound of Christ's side is meant to cement the notion of Jesus having been raised bodily. It is necessary to confront the notion that Jesus was raised only spiritually and according to the scriptures the 10 surviving Apostles spent a week believing in the resurrection of Jesus based only on what they saw and heard (no accounts of touching). Their belief in the resurrection is not explicitly reckoned to be a bodily resurrection. Although the scriptures that recount Thomas' doubt typically include all of the Apostles engaging in touching action following Jesus' invitation first to Thomas and then the rest to touch and believe.

Paul, does not engage in touching action that is recorded in scripture. He believes without touching and seems not to have tremendous difficulty believing the resurrection to be bodily.

If salvation were not a matter of grace but a function of proper belief there would be a greater need to insist on how the resurrection took place.

The fact that the scripture narrative sees fit to include the fact of Jesus' physicality after the resurrection runs headlong against the same scripture testifying to events that, for us are impossible to duplicate. Jesus' sudden appearance in the middle of a locked room and his sudden disappearance from the same presents a serious challenge to the idea that Jesus' post-resurrection body is as limited as his pre-resurrection body.

What, to me, seems to be of greatest importance (as far as the history of Chrisitanity is concerned) is less whether Jesus was metaphorically or literally raised and more the change that the resurrection catalyzes in the hearts and minds of those who experience it. In a span of weeks men who formally hid from authorities are now standing on the very doorstep of those authorities proclaiming a very unpopular (and then deadly) message.

It matters not whether we believe the resurrection to be spiritual only or bodily only or some blend of the two if that belief does not change who we are at our core.

 

[Luce NDs]

Well, yes and no.

The scriptural record is clear that the resurrection was a physical event. Whether or not one decides to take those scriptures at face value is another matter.

Jesus being both a spirtual and physical being (both God and Human) cannot be raised (I believe) in part. A whole resurrection would require a spiritual and physical resurrection.

The account of Thomas not believing until he himself is able to put a finger in the wounds of Christ's hands and his hand in the wound of Christ's side is meant to cement the notion of Jesus having been raised bodily. It is necessary to confront the notion that Jesus was raised only spiritually and according to the scriptures the 10 surviving Apostles spent a week believing in the resurrection of Jesus based only on what they saw and heard (no accounts of touching). Their belief in the resurrection is not explicitly reckoned to be a bodily resurrection. Although the scriptures that recount Thomas' doubt typically include all of the Apostles engaging in touching action following Jesus' invitation first to Thomas and then the rest to touch and believe.

Paul, does not engage in touching action that is recorded in scripture. He believes without touching and seems not to have tremendous difficulty believing the resurrection to be bodily.

If salvation were not a matter of grace but a function of proper belief there would be a greater need to insist on how the resurrection took place.

The fact that the scripture narrative sees fit to include the fact of Jesus' physicality after the resurrection runs headlong against the same scripture testifying to events that, for us are impossible to duplicate. Jesus' sudden appearance in the middle of a locked room and his sudden disappearance from the same presents a serious challenge to the idea that Jesus' post-resurrection body is as limited as his pre-resurrection body.

What, to me, seems to be of greatest importance (as far as the history of Chrisitanity is concerned) is less whether Jesus was metaphorically or literally raised and more the change that the resurrection catalyzes in the hearts and minds of those who experience it. In a span of weeks men who formally hid from authorities are now standing on the very doorstep of those authorities proclaiming a very unpopular (and then deadly) message.

It matters not whether we believe the resurrection to be spiritual only or bodily only or some blend of the two if that belief does not change who we are at our core.

The a' Palling story of man's inhumanity to self ... a difficult sickness to cure ... takes a great power to end it ... can one harvest that as an thought from outside?

 

[revsdd]

The account of Thomas not believing until he himself is able to put a finger in the wounds of Christ's hands and his hand in the wound of Christ's side is meant to cement the notion of Jesus having been raised bodily.

The passage in John 20 does not say that Thomas ever touched Jesus' wounds. It says that he insisted on touching Jesus' wounds before he believed, but the narrative suggests that although Jesus then invited him to touch the wounds, ultimately seeing Jesus was sufficient for Thomas to believe. Nothing says that Thomas ever touched him. Luke 24:39-40 also records Jesus showing his wounds to the disciples and inviting them to touch him, but doesn't say that they did touch him.

There are actually few specific reference to Jesus actually being touched by any of his disciples after the resurrection.

Matthew 28:9 says that the disciples touched his feet. John 20:17 says that Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to hold onto him, which implies physical contact although it isn't actually stated outright that Mary touched him.

The physicality of the resurrection is stated most plainly in the accounts of Jesus eating with his disciples. Disembodied spirits presumably do not eat.

 

[Waterfall]

It does not say anything about the actual moment of resurrection. What was it actually like when Jesus arose. Hoe exactly did God accomplish this? What did Jesus feel, see, experience as life returned to his body? It tells us that an empty tomb was discovered and that after that the disciples encountered Jesus alive.


I assume that it means that this was the moment at which he believed in what Jesus had taught him about the Son of Man being raised from the dead. What we see in the Gospels is that the disciples became very upset with Jesus when he spoke about his pending death, suggesting that they weren't even willing to think about resurrection. This was a sort of "Oh! Now I get it!" moment.



John 20:9 is an interesting verse indeed. Most translators and commentators that I'm familiar with take that verse in the sense of not understanding the Scripture rather than not knowing it, but it still begs the question: what Scripture? By the time John wrote Christian Scripture was still largely undefined and in flux, with different Christian communities having different "canons." I've discussed the development of the Christian canon before, so don't propose to go into it again here, except to say that "Scripture" today (in mainline Protestant churches at least) is the 66 books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. There's lots of Scripture there that talks about the resurrection - but none that "describe" it in the sense I'm meaning that I'm aware of. If by "Scripture" you mean extrabiblical writings, I'm still not aware of an account of the actual moment of resurrection.

To me, it seems perhaps more likely that the point in John 20:9 was that the disciples hadn't understand from prophecy (ie, the Old Testament) or perhaps from the words of Jesus (by the time John was written, it's likely that the synoptic Gospels at least had been accorded sort of "quasi-canonical" status) that this was going to happen. Not entirely clear, though, what "Scripture" he is referring to.

Your posts are giving me a lot to think about and especially how you described what you would preach on an Easter Sunday.
I realize now there is no description of the actual resurrection but I've always related the empty tomb to the explanation and yet the actual beginning stages of the resurrection most likely took place on the cross and the disciples and other witnesses being human of course are unable to see what occurs beyond death other than an explanation from the tomb. Which begs the question, who could have written in scripture what happened to Jesus after He took His last earthly breath? Only in John does Jesus say he will send the Paraclete and then breathes the Holy Spirit into them before His departure....does this provide more information to the disciples I wonder? Is the Paraclete the Holy spirit? (John 14:16: 20:22. Within the other gospels, the Holy Spirit doesn't come until the first Pentecost after Jesus' ascension?

I did like within your sermon how you have accepted the mystery of the resurrection, seemed to resonate with me personally, someone who wants answers and believes if one looks hard enough we should be able to find them, BUT no one knows what happens after death....it IS a mystery unless someone comes along that is believable to inform us. Then I guess I have to ask myself, do I find throughout his life on earth ,what he has taught to be believable? Has He been truthful all along? Do His words resonate truth right from the beginning, then why would that change at the death and resurrection?

 

[revjohn]

The passage in John 20 does not say that Thomas ever touched Jesus' wounds. It says that he insisted on touching Jesus' wounds before he believed, but the narrative suggests that although Jesus then invited him to touch the wounds, ultimately seeing Jesus was sufficient for Thomas to believe. Nothing says that Thomas ever touched him. Luke 24:39-40 also records Jesus showing his wounds to the disciples and inviting them to touch him, but doesn't say that they did touch him.

True. Nothing says Thomas refused. So at best we offer argument from silence and prove nothing.

I find it less credible that Thomas would make such a bold statement and then given the opportunity to touch would then refuse. I understand that it puts me on thin ice with respect to a logically solid argument. I do not think the position I have adopted proves unreasonable.

Matthew 28:9 says that the disciples touched his feet.

How many texts would be necessary to prove that Jesus was capable of being touched and therefore, on some level, existed with physical boundaries?

John 20:17 says that Jesus told Mary Magdalene not to hold onto him, which implies physical contact although it isn't actually stated outright that Mary touched him.

In much the same way "Do not walk on the grass" signs never indicate that the grass has been walked on. They may serve only to highlight the fear that someone may walk on the grass a fear which is reasonable since people do, as a matter of fact, walk on the grass.

The encounter with Mary in the garden also introduces something conditional. There is a reason for Mary not to hold onto him, namely, he has not yet ascended. I cannot for the life of me think why that would matter unless Jesus really was wanting to ascend and decided to take a quick detour to settle a friend.

The physicality of the resurrection is stated most plainly in the accounts of Jesus eating with his disciples. Disembodied spirits presumably do not eat.

Agreed. I think the inclusion of these accounts is part of the process of cementing the notion of a bodily resurrection. They add to the element of touching to confirm the physicality of Jesus' post-resurrection body. They do not deny certain ghost-like qualities as mentioned above. They do seem to combat the notion that the resurrection is only a metaphorical event.

 

[Luce NDs]

Does one have to feel the injury to the other to be cognizant of the weal?

Some prefer to not know .. and thus Gods are raised ... those of greatest opinion nation ... condensed to opinionation ... word as yet unacceptable ... until the west side power makes it's mark in folly ...

Nothing is more impressive than folly ... does make a splash ... POTUS demands the greatest!

 

[Luce NDs]

True. Nothing says Thomas refused. So at best we offer argument from silence and prove nothing.

I find it less credible that Thomas would make such a bold statement and then given the opportunity to touch would then refuse. I understand that it puts me on thin ice with respect to a logically solid argument. I do not think the position I have adopted proves unreasonable.



How many texts would be necessary to prove that Jesus was capable of being touched and therefore, on some level, existed with physical boundaries?



In much the same way "Do not walk on the grass" signs never indicate that the grass has been walked on. They may serve only to highlight the fear that someone may walk on the grass a fear which is reasonable since people do, as a matter of fact, walk on the grass.

The encounter with Mary in the garden also introduces something conditional. There is a reason for Mary not to hold onto him, namely, he has not yet ascended. I cannot for the life of me think why that would matter unless Jesus really was wanting to ascend and decided to take a quick detour to settle a friend.



Agreed. I think the inclusion of these accounts is part of the process of cementing the notion of a bodily resurrection. They add to the element of touching to confirm the physicality of Jesus' post-resurrection body. They do not deny certain ghost-like qualities as mentioned above. They do seem to combat the notion that the resurrection is only a metaphorical event.

Was Tomeas the greatest of Christ's conscience ... appearing as Shadow ... a darker hue than white lightning ... be careful around string spirits .. they hide bursting opinions ...

 

[revsdd]

True. Nothing says Thomas refused. So at best we offer argument from silence and prove nothing.

I find it less credible that Thomas would make such a bold statement and then given the opportunity to touch would then refuse. I understand that it puts me on thin ice with respect to a logically solid argument. I do not think the position I have adopted proves unreasonable.

Interesting how we perceive things differently here. I find it more credible that, finally confronted with the appearance of the resurrected Jesus, Thomas would be overwhelmed by the experience to the point of not needing to touch Jesus.

How many texts would be necessary to prove that Jesus was capable of being touched and therefore, on some level, existed with physical boundaries?

Only one, assuming that one accepts the veracity of the texts, which I do. I'm merely pointing out the relative paucity of accounts of the risen Jesus being touched.

I think the inclusion of these accounts is part of the process of cementing the notion of a bodily resurrection. They add to the element of touching to confirm the physicality of Jesus' post-resurrection body. They do not deny certain ghost-like qualities as mentioned above. They do seem to combat the notion that the resurrection is only a metaphorical event.

No argument there. In my view, it is the most obvious reason for the inclusion of the touching and eating stories. This was a real resurrection and not a metaphor, and it had a physical component to it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Allows the Eris-in story of lighter nature of fright ... Chive's up the spine ...