When the dead come back to life they are called Zombies. Zombies can only be killed by a shot to the head.

The Lord be with you, Peter,

"The Church owes the world a consistent and reasonable account of the faith to which it bears witness."

The church owes nothing to the world - the church owes everything to God.

Yes, the spiritual resurrection is of greater value, but why must it be an either-or? why grovel before secularists and their science in denial of the physical resurrection of Christ? Is this what you teach your flock, Peter, undermining their simple and straightforward faith? If so, then it is not serving them but is due to your spiritual weakness, in which case you may consider taking a rest from the ministry.

Of course there's a soul or spirit being. And evidenced by children born without one, being stillborn.

Three days after I buried Mum, her spirit appeared to me for a few scant seconds, as a being composed of eflugent light. (moonlight shining on silver) And a customary conspiratorial wink and a blown kiss enough to identify who she was.

Even so, I needed a few days and some old black and white photos of her taken when she was a very young and attractive young woman, to be sure of who it was who came back long enough to "say" goodbye?

Then there were those reported experiments by some french scientists, who placed newly minted cadavers on a scientifically precise scale to observe any discernible changes and apparently noted, that in each and every case; and around forty minutes after the final breath, all the corpses suddenly weighed just a few ounces lighter; and just not explained by normal dehydration which is slow and progressive.

I drowned as a kid and remember an out of body experience. And read numerous accounts of similar experiences in "life after life?"

Similarly, I opened death's door recently when I had a stroke. And saw a desolate place just too awful to adequately describe, overseen by an intensely evil entity, who asked time and again, what I wanted?

And whatever it was offering, I had no other choice than decline, and indeed hark back to my boyhood and forgotten prayers, the most fervent I've ever uttered in my life, given the state of unimaginable terror this entity created in me.
Sure, it could have all been the product of a damaged brain, or conversely, an actual experience.

As for resurrection? I believe that may be routinely misinterpreted reincarnation. "Truly truly, I say to you, to reach the kingdom of heaven, you must be born again.

And if you include karma and reincarnation, our world with all its sham, drudgery, misery, horror, injustice and folks seemly favoured by unearned serendipity, suddenly makes perfect sense that includes perfect inescapable, divine justice?
Rhrosty.

I appreciate hearing your experience Rhrosty.

I think the great hope of the resurrection of Christ does not come solely in His conquering of the grave, which is in itself remarkable, but the promise that we, as children of God can have that same experience for ourselves. There are multiple evidences in scripture to show that the early Christian writers believed in a resurrection for all men, not simply of the Christ.

If that is the case, and I believe that it is, it should be the greatest message of hope to the world. Death is not the end, there is life after death.

Peter,

You wrote "A useful place to begin is to compare the resurrection with the crucifixion. We understand the crucifixion. The man Jesus was crucified "under Pontius Pilate", as the creed states. It was an historical event open to observation by all people. Jesus was given a second name "Christ" that refers to him being crucified."

I would appreciate if you have the time, watching the YouTube video linked below, you can skip the start and just watch the section (part I of the video between minutes 4.28 to 31.55).
http://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0

The evidence show completely debunks religion in its entirety and the so called figure of Jesus and therefore your assumptions, what you have written above and the entire article you have put forward.

I look forward to your response.

Jeez,I thought that Sells last posting hit the bottom of the barrel for its sheer dim-witted silliness,or the fact that it had almost nothing whatsoever to do with either human or Divine Reality.

But I was obviously wrong because this essay has nothing whatsoever to do with Reality - zilch. Neither human or Divine Reality as it may have been in Palestine 2000 years ago (whenever and wherever that was), nor human and Divine Reality in the now time of the "21st" century.

It is pure make-believe fantasy and as such wins the Booby prize for Sells worst ever essay.

This essay provides an interesting multi-cultural esoteric perspective on what may be called a "resurrection" body of light, as distinct from the naive reductionist mis-understanding promulgated by the usual Christian true believers
http://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/42-publications/quest-magazine/1690-resurrection-and-the-body-of-light

.

Dear Peter,

.

"Faith", as I understand it, is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both).

"Blind faith" is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

This, in my view, qualifies most religious belief as blind faith.

So for the Church to provide “a consistent and reasonable account of the faith to which it bears witness” it needs to justify blind faith.

These articles treat the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion#cite_note-109

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214

.

Also, apart from the fact that almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus probably existed, there is no consensus among historians on the historical reliability of the narratives of the gospels.

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate.

The elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels).

There is absolutely no agreement among historians on your affirmation that “witnesses to the resurrection became believers; to witness the resurrection was to believe”. Quite the contrary, many historians consider that: “to believe the resurrection was to witness; believers of the resurrection became witnesses”.

You have presented an incomplete, truncated and biased version of the historical facts, if indeed, they may be considered “historical facts” at all.

.

.

Oops ! The second link should have been the following :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion

Sorry about that.

.

Banjo, I have no desire to debate your belief/non belief in Christianity but I do find myself wanting to explain faith.

Faith is terribly defined in the dictionary, as the definitions give the reader no help to understand what faith is. It likens it to other related principles, like belief, trust and confidence, but if faith was the same as those principles it wouldn't be a separate word.

Faith is the acting on a belief to achieve an expected outcome, that has not yet been realised or seen. It is more than simply believing, and likewise, is also more than mere action. Hence why when beginning a university degree one can claim to have faith in oneself to accomplish the goal of graduating.

"Blind faith" as a term is a contradiction. Faith can never be blind, as it is the acting on a belief. One can act without believing, but this is not faith. You can also have blind obedience, where one acts ignorant of the consequences of ones actions. However where the actions are according to an individuals belief, it can never be blind. Misguided maybe, but not blind.

Every single human being has faith of some degree. The quality of their faith is determined by the quality of the thing that they believe in and the quality of their action. Technically speaking faith is used by scientists, students, sportsmen and women, the religious, the irreligious and more.

Every time someone acts on something that they believe to be true that person is acting in faith.

Prebs,

Thanks for an interesting explanation of the term (religious) faith. No wonder people confuse faith and belief: In some languages, e.g. German or Russian, one cannot distinguish between the words faith and belief (they have the word Glaube or vera respectively to stand for both). This can cause problems when translating religious text from German into English.

Nevertheless, one can make the distinction indirectly:

“Credo QUOD Deus unus sit” - [I believe THAT God (exists and) is one] refers to religious BELIEF, whereas “Credo IN unum Deum” [I believe IN one God] is an expression of FAITH.

Peter,

I think you have shown that it is hard to explain (to non-Christians) what is meant by Christ's resurrection but easy to explain it away.

.

Dear Prebs,

.

You wrote :

« Faith is terribly defined in the dictionary, as the definitions give the reader no help to understand what faith is. It likens it to … belief, trust and confidence … »
.

I am a reader and dictionaries help me to understand. I am surprised they don’t help you. It is impossible to communicate correctly if we do not agree on the meaning of the words we employ. That is the object of linguistics in general and semantics in particular. An authoritative dictionary simply indicates the conventional meanings defined by those fields of study.

The authoritative dictionary definitions are deemed to apply unless the writer indicates otherwise.

I indicated my definitions of the terms “faith” and “blind faith” (which I do not think you will find in any dictionary). You indicated a counter-definition of “faith” and rejected the rationality of the term “blind faith”.

You consider that “faith can never be blind, as it is the acting on a belief”. Others consider that “all faith is blind because if we can see something, then faith is no longer operative”.

In my definition, faith is blind when there is no material evidence but it nevertheless continues to be operative if there is either circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness, or both. This definition leaves room for the benefit of the doubt.

However, there is no room for doubt in either your definition or the exact opposite definition cited previously.

I consider that belief in the resurrection requires blind faith because there is no material evidence, and no consensus among historians on the historical reliability of that particular narrative in the gospels, on which it is founded. Therefore: no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

I see no justification for blind faith on such an important matter - even though, according to George (on this forum), I am a Christian because I have been baptised.

You also limit faith to “acting on a belief”. If by that you include “deciding to do nothing” then I agree.

.

Dear Banjo (and Prebs),

Here is what I actually wrote: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16853#296419 . It ends with me saying that you can work it out for yourself: you are an Australian by birth, and also a Christian “by birth” (i.e. by infant baptism), in both cases whether you like it or not. This terminology is not my invention.

George,
I protest that I have not explained the resurrection away but have placed it at the centre of Christian faith. I doubt that you can provide a rational account of the resurrection narratives. I think we are past the hand waving that goes on about this.
Peter

Peter,
Any response to what I posted yesterday? (Prior post)
Cheers
Geoff

One again, it looks like I'm the one who is going to ask, "what is the panic", with a fairly simple, straightforward attempt at resolution involving two threads of Xtianity apparently at odds, to do with miracles and proposed that depending on belief, you will see the evidence and results of Jesus' death born out in what appear to be severe grief reactions, and /or something to do with "magical" events.

Anyone who has crossed that before/after bridge that comes with the first brutal acquaintance with grief understands that the loss of a loved one induces a fierce, powerful set of disempowering responses that eventually form the completed human and is compatible with a bare bones reading of the NT that is eventually coherent if less ambitious in its claims as a meditation on life, value and meaning eventually leading to some thing oddly compatible with "reality".

I don't have to beleive in miracles to have a sense of someone who, if a mate or family member, I would have grieved for, judging by the story (or let down when it came to the crunch, remorsefully looking back).

If you like, I choose to employ the story as a reference point for my own efforts to make sense of life, along with Socrates, Buddha, a thread that reaches through history and is an underlying basis for both Nietzschean existentialism and Marxist activism, eventually.

No, I'm not religious (although it's interesting on reflection, how often Ive "got on the blower" when things ran crook and no one ëlse wanted to know me). I'm just not prepared to throw away the gift of my cultural heritage and reference points, the history of humanity handed me on a plate and definition of what makes god, god, on mere prejudice and actually welcome contemplations on the nature and basis of reality.

Dear Peter (Sells),

I do not want to be cheeky by noting that it is not necessary to place the Resurrection at the centre of Christian faith since it has always been there.

By “explaining away” I mean exactly what you call a “rational account of the resurrection narrative” (or the closely related belief in afterlife). Jesus’ Resurrection, as narrated in the Bible, was obviously not a resuscitation (and was not many other things).

Nevertheless, in distinction to you, I am not a theologian. This was just my personal reaction to your - or anybody’s - attempt at giving an explanation of that what cannot be rationally explained.

[Even if I was a theologian and thought I had a rational explanation of the Resurrection, I would not be able to fit it into 350 words; and, besides, this would not be the right forum for it.]

If you persist in trying
To attain what is never attained
(It is Tao’s [God’s] gift!)
If you persist in making effort
to obtain what effort cannot get;
If you persist in reasoning
About what cannot be understood,
You will be destroyed
By the very thing you seek.

Chuang Tzu (in Thoma Merton’s translation)

.

If you persist in trying
To attain what is never attained
If you persist in making effort
To obtain what effort cannot get;
If you persist in reasoning
About what cannot be understood,
You will have lived your life completely
And have nothing to regret.

Lao She (in Banjo Paterson’s translation)

.

True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood.

(J.W, Goethe in defence of Chuang Tzu)

George,
When the prodigal returns (Luke 15:11..) and the father explains to the son who remained why he is celebrating he says: because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found." This is a resurrection story. I have no wish to reduce theology to logic but it must behave in a rational fashion if it is not to be ridiculed by a culture that thinks it is based on rationality. If there is deep mystery in resurrection it is a mystery that we are all involved in as we walk the path of faith and find we have been raised from the dead.
p.s. I always appreciate your comments.
Peter

Peter,
Still no reply, will you respond to my request? It goes to the heart of what you are stating.

.

« An ant on the move does more than a dozing ox »

Laozi

.

Dear Peter,

<<I have no wish to reduce theology to logic but it must behave in a rational fashion if it is not to be ridiculed by a culture that thinks it is based on rationality.>>

To accept ridicule is a property of Christ. To grovel before this secular culture which believes their ideas to be based on rationality - is cowardice:

"He unselfishly accepted a role that would require His being misunderstood, abused, cursed, tortured, and then crucified."

(from http://www.ifl.org.au/Insights/Insights-by-Topic/Christmas/Unwrap-Joy-This-Christmas.aspx)

Sells,

Thanks. I never heard the Prodigal Son parable interpreted as resurrection.

I reread your article again. I agree that the Resurrection “cannot be … understood as … the continuation of his ideas or ideals or morality” also because the authors of the Gospel (as well as the early Christians) understood these concepts and clearly did not see the Resurrection reduced to them. On the other hand, they did not have a clear distinction between what we now call the physical (amenable to senses and natural science) and spiritual dimensions of Reality. So they were not bothered by the “restored physical body” walking through closed doors etc.

By the way, Max Weber’s reference to a disenchanted universe was related to the fact that many of his contemporaries, including himself, lost or always lacked, this belief in that extra dimension of reality that science (and history) cannot make statements about.

To cut it short, I do not think that “the only way forward is to understand the resurrection stories metaphorically” but I agree that “ there is no life without THE body (that was destroyed by death)”. My — and I think many Christians’ — belief is that our resurrection refers to a new existence of the old soul (mind, memories) in a new body in a different world. Jesus is the only one who returned from that world (and went back to it through Ascension).

So I changed my mind — thus acting against Wittgenstein’s advice “whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent” — and gave you in a nutshell what I believe. It is not science, so it is silly to ask for evidence for these basic world view assumptions.

.

Dear George,

.

As I indicated above in my reply to Prebs, I see no justification for blind faith on such an important question as “resurrection”. As far as I know, the closest phenomena observed in nature are holometaboly (complete metamorphosis) and hemimetaboly (partial metamorphosis).

Metamorphosis occurs in the majority of insects (and therefore, the majority of all animals).

It involves the death of tissue through a natural process called apoptosis or “programmed cell death”. The animal is “re-born” and subsequently undergoes a process of metamorphic transformation.

It is through this process that a modest, creeping, crawling caterpillar becomes a beautiful butterfly, fluttering nimbly through the air.

It seems the magnificent butterfly is a wise little insect. It never forgets its humble origins :

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001736

I have no problem recognizing metamorphosis as a form of “resurrection” but present day state of the art biological engineering, as far as I am aware, is not yet capable of reproducing it in human beings - though, it may be just a question of time.

Perhaps it was this prospect that inspired Ovid’s famous Latin poem, “On Death and Metamorphosis” :

« O genus humanum, quod mortem nimium timet! Cur pericula mortis timetis? Omnia mutantur, omnia fluunt, nihil ad veram mortem venit. Animus errat et in alia corpora miscetur; nec manet, nec easdem formas servat, sed in formas novas mutatur. Vita est flumen; tempora nostra fugiunt et nova sunt semper. Nostra corpora semper mutantur; id quod fumus aut sumus, non eras erimus »

[ O human race, which fears death too much! Why do you fear the danger of death? All is changing, all is flowing. Nothing comes to the truly dead. The mind wanders and is being mixed in other bodies; nothing remains, nothing preserves these forms, but is being changed into new forms. Life is a fluid; our time flees and new is forever. Our bodies are always changing. That which we have been and are now will not be tomorrow ]

Who knows, George? We may be all creeping and crawling or fluttering about one of these days !

.

Peter, I would really appreciate your views on the content of the link I posted in my original post I wrote to you.

I find it odd you can respond to others, yet ignore me, are you being deliberately rude or have you simply missed my posts
Cheers
Geoff

Dear Banjo,

I do not see any point in discussing pejorative expressions like “blind faith” that only those who dismiss faith in the religious meaning of the word use. Chinese is incomprehensible to me but I cannot expect a native Chinese speaker to see it the same way. The rest of your post just expands on what Peter and I were saying, namely that whatever Christ’s resurrection means, it is not resuscitation or restoration of the physical body. Thanks for the Ovid quote which seems only marginally relevant to this.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I do not see any point in discussing pejorative expressions like “blind faith” that only those who dismiss faith in the religious meaning of the word use »
.

Point well taken, George, though I, personally, do not employ the term in a pejorative sense. In my mind it is simply a particular category of faith (no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness).

In future I shall refer to it as “unconditional faith” in order to avoid any possible suggestion of disrespect.

I understand that, for many Christians, the resurrection of the body is the “sine qua non” of their religious faith :

1 Corinthians 15:13-18 New International Version (NIV) :

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

I also understand that there is no evidence, either material or circumstantial, of Jesus having resurrected (the story of the empty tomb simply attesting – presuming it to be true - to the disappearance of his corpse). Nor has it ever been claimed by the gospels or by any other source that there was a credible eye witness of the miracle of Jesus resurrecting and coming out of the tomb.

To believe this requires unconditional faith. I can see no way it could possibly meet Peter’s criteria for theology of “behaving in a rational fashion”. Can you?

.

.

Dear George,

.

I don’t know if it is of any value to you but I just noticed that an apparently reputable Biblical scholar, Géza Vermes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9za_Vermes), analysed this subject in his book, “The Resurrection”. He concludes that there are eight possible theories to explain the "resurrection of Jesus" :

« I have discounted the two extremes that are not susceptible to rational judgment, the blind faith of the fundamentalist believer and the out-of-hand rejection of the inveterate skeptic. The fundamentalists accept the story, not as written down in the New Testament texts, but as reshaped, transmitted, and interpreted by Church tradition. They smooth down the rough edges and abstain from asking tiresome questions. The unbelievers, in turn, treat the whole Resurrection story as the figment of early Christian imagination. Most inquirers with a smattering of knowledge of the history of religions will find themselves between these two poles ».

From his analysis, Vermes presents the remaining six possibilities to explain the resurrection of Jesus account: (1) "The body was removed by someone unconnected with Jesus", (2) "The body was stolen by his disciples", (3) "The empty tomb was not that of Jesus", (4) Buried alive, Jesus later left the tomb", (5) He recovered from a coma and left Judea, (6) it was a "spiritual, not a bodily, resurrection". Vermes states that none of these possibilities are likely to be historical.

According to N. T. Wright in his book “The Resurrection of the Son of God”: "There can be no question: Paul is a firm believer in bodily resurrection. Gary Habermas adds: "Many other scholars have spoken in support of a bodily notion of Jesus’ resurrection".

Habermas cites other facts in support of Paul's belief in bodily resurrection: Paul was a Pharisee and Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection. In Philippians 3:20–21 he writes: "We look from heaven for Jesus who will change our vile soma (body) to be like unto his soma (body)". If Paul meant a spiritual body, he would have used the Greek “pneuma” instead of “soma” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Doubts_of_historicity_and_other_interpretations

.

Dear Banjo,

I think we have been through this before: one cannot find this way a justification for one's worldview preferences (although one can call them rational and others irrational if that helps).

I agree with you and Peter that the Resurrection cannot be seen as restoration of physical body (or something to be captured by a TV camera), and I disagree with Peter that the Resurrection narrative should be seen only as a metaphor. I cannot say more than what I wrote in response to Peter’s challenge about the Gospel writers’ (and Paul’s) unawareness of what modern science can and cannot pass judgements about.

The six possibilities listed by Vermes are old stuff but anyhow thanks for the quotes. As I already said, not being a theologian myself I am with the logician Wittgenstein: “whereof one cannot speak (clearly) thereof one must be silent”.

Geoff of Perth,
I would respond to your post if you stated your questions instead of referring me to quite a long video.
Peter

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« As I already said, not being a theologian myself I am with the logician Wittgenstein: “whereof one cannot speak (clearly) thereof one must be silent” »
.

That sounds like a wise move, George.

I see that that was the final and best known proposition of Ludwig’s “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. But then, at the end of the book, he warns: "My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical". In other words, in the authors own judgement, they don’t make sense.

That’s odd isn’t it ?

Perhaps he means we should not try to understand them but simply have faith in them – unconditional faith perhaps ?
.

You also wrote :

« I agree with you and Peter that the Resurrection cannot be seen as restoration of physical body … »
.

My personal view on resurrection is that, apart from the natural phenomenon of metamorphosis which occurs in the majority of insects (and therefore, the majority of all animals), there is no such thing as resurrection, given present-day state-of-the-art biological engineering. Also, I see no reason, at the time of writing, to believe in so-called “spiritual resurrection”.

I consider that belief in what is claimed to have been the resurrection of Jesus requires “unconditional faith” or “faith without cause”.
.

You then added :

« … and I disagree with Peter that the Resurrection narrative should be seen only as a metaphor »
.

At least his interpretation is coherent with his previous statement: “I have no wish to reduce theology to logic but it must behave in a rational fashion …”

As you noted, yourself, earlier: “one cannot find this way a justification for one's worldview preferences (although one can call them rational and others irrational if that helps)”.

Apparently Peter is not prepared to believe in the Resurrection narrative on the basis of “unconditional faith” or “faith without cause”.

.

Hi Sells,

Thanks for responding.

I know the video is approximately 30 something odd minutes long but it goes directly to the heart of the resurrection.

I would appreciate if you spent the time watching the video and then advising if you could/would assert to the conclusions made in your article, specifically in relation to the 'resurrection' as you believe it to be?

Cheers
Geoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoon_hypothesis

Some people claim that Jesus survived the crucifixion and lived out his days in Kashmir.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/visiting_the_grave_of_jesus_in_srinagar.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8587838.stm