Oh Dear~Aphrodite Questions Christianity, Specifically the Resurrection, Etc.

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

So, I'm a born again Christian, newly. But I've always had problems with a hardcore literal interpretation of the bible when it diverged from known natural phenomena of life. I also am skeptical because for a few? decades after Jesus' crucifixion, nothing was evidently written down as a testament, making it obvious that verbal stories and scattered scribblings, from the hands of mere mortals, should at the most be rejected as a word-for-word literal tome form the lips of God, and at the least be used warily, with a discerning mind.

To learn more about Jesus, I embarked on an 11-week bible study called, "Jesus, the One and Only" with Beth Moore. I like her. She's an ENFJ and very into scripture and teaching; she can bring out nuances, sometimes even just hinged on the root of a word, and tie them in with our own psychological situations very well, which is why I really like her studies.

I could enjoy Jesus' history and words, and even works (though I agreed with my left brain that I wouldn't look too closely at raising the dead, and we could keep tripping along the bumpy Jerusalem road) as we went along week after week. But I knew it was coming. That moment where I would be confronted with the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, the Messiah. For some reason I could accommodate the holy conception as coming from God (though I secretly think Mary was a victim of incest, if I were to be completely honest), and the beautiful, selfless life (my fav part) of Jesus. But for some reason, I cannot suspend my ability to disbelieve anymore, when it comes to Jesus' literal resurrection on the third day, walking around and 'appearing' to people for 40 days, then finally ascending in heaven, per Luke's account.




Can I be a Christian, believe Jesus was a special person who exemplified the notion of Coram Deo, was persecuted for his special, ironical belief in God and man's hatred, and ascended into heaven the same way we all will when we die?

Or does one have to believe in it all literally, hook, line, and sinker to be a Christian?



Love to All,

~A

 

[Pseudo]

I'm not one to always be a biblical literalist and I don't think anyone has the authority to day who is or isn't a Christian. However my personal perspective is that the resurrection is really the main point of Jesus's life. If he didn't live perfectly and overcome death, if god is incapable of having Mary conceive they how do we se them as divine at all. It of course contradicts the natural order because if it didn't it wouldn't be much of a statement.

I guess what I'm saying is if you do t believe in an all powerful Christ and god why would you want to be a Christian?

 

[cafe]

Most of the creeds include a profession of the belief in the resurrection, as far as I know. However, my own tradition is pretty darn literalist, so I'll defer to those who know more than I do on the subject.

 

[tinker683]

Most of the creeds include a profession of the belief in the resurrection, as far as I know. However, my own tradition is pretty darn literalist, so I'll defer to those who know more than I do on the subject.

Snark answer: Given the sheer volume of chuckle-heads who call themselves Christian but then believe whatever they want to believe, I don't see how your choice to doubt or disbelieve the Resurrection should make you any less a Christian

More serious answer: I'm not sure how you could. As Cafe touched on above, The Resurrection is one of the fundamental aspects of the religion and is repeatedly affirmed in the liturgies and the Apostle and Nicene Creeds. It signifies Christ's triumph over sin and death, it's the miracle to end all miracles, the chief source of proof that Christ really was the son of God. To throw that out or to write it off as symbology I think severely undercuts the religion and reduces Jesus to a mere mortal or teacher on the same level as Buddha, Confucius, or Lao Tzu. Not that any of these figures aren't important or anything like that, but they are no Messiahs or Sons of God(tm) by any means.

Truthfully, of all the aspects of Christianity that's causing you cognitive dissonance, why is it the Resurrection? I mean, if you believe that God can do anything, then why is raising the dead out of the question? Shouldn't that be well within the purview of his abilities?

 

[Lark]

Biblical literalism is the hall mark of dead religion, rooted in the solo scriptural heresy, its only natural and logical that you'd think what you are.

Additionally I think it sounds like you're closer to James and Matthew's version of the Christ than Pauline Christianity, I'm the same but I dont think pauline christianity deserves to be villified as anti-semitic the way some bitter Jews have done.

 

[Lark]

Biblical literalism is the hall mark of dead religion, rooted in the solo scriptural heresy, its only natural and logical that you'd think what you are.

Additionally I think it sounds like you're closer to James and Matthew's version of the Christ than Pauline Christianity, I'm the same but I dont think pauline christianity deserves to be villified as anti-semitic the way some bitter Jews have done.

 

[gromit]

I am Christian, but I don't know if I can view resurrection literally either. I have no idea what happens after death, I hope, but do not know.

But I do know grace. I know healing. Rebirth. We aren't born again simply once. We are re-born all the time, as we grow.

 

[Totenkindly]

I am Christian, but I don't know if I can view resurrection literally either. I have no idea what happens after death, I hope, but do not know.

But I do know grace. I know healing. Rebirth. We aren't born again simply once. We are re-born all the time, as we grow.

That's generally where I come from. The concept of resurrection is crucial; Christianity claims a literal one. i guess the more concrete one is, the more one demands a historical and concrete resurrection to "prove" the veracity of the concept.

To me resurrection and the cycle of birth and death and rebirth is part of the fabric of this world; and the rebirth provides hope that death is not the end, that there is something more after. every time we suffer a loss or give up something, every time we even go to sleep, it's similar to death; and we hope that we will wake up and/or come out alive on the other side. Jesus is a literal representation of the hope that death is not the end and that life can exist after death. That imagery has real power. I am not sure how we would go about proving Jesus was the son of God per se and that the resurrection truly occurred and was the sign of divine power made manifest; but I believe the idea of resurrection is true regardless.

There are also very many sects of Christianity, ranging from the very conservative and/or literal to the very liberal and/or figurative. There are people who consider themselves Christian because they embody the ideals of Christ and what he represents, even if they don't really care whether it was a historical event. of course, various sects of Christianity all the time call other Christians "frauds" for not sharing the same beliefs, but one has to determine what one believes and then be true to it regardless.

I dont think pauline christianity deserves to be villified as anti-semitic..

I don't think it does either. It's also kind of a bizarre claim, considering Paul himself was Jewish and merely sent to preach to the Gentiles, and Jesus was Jewish. Paul simply is going "big picture" and expanding the possibility of a relationship with God to all people and not just to a particular nationality.

 

[Lark]

I don't think it does either. It's also kind of a bizarre claim, considering Paul himself was Jewish and merely sent to preach to the Gentiles, and Jesus was Jewish. Paul simply is going "big picture" and expanding the possibility of a relationship with God to all people and not just to a particular nationality.

Which is very consistent with Jesus teaching particularly after his meeting of the woman by the well, I think they were, I cant spell this, a syrophenician? And Jesus did initially respond in a tribalistic fashion but changed his line of thinking apparently because of the faith and persistence of the woman.

Paul was apparently a Romanised Jew and considered a Jew in name only by the Jews who believe in the Pauline Christianity = Anti-semitism idea, there was a book published about it lately which I was really angry about for a while, I felt the author projected the modern Israeli Christianity = anti-semitism back into the past to the very foundation years.

Its ironic that they created the James/Matthew vs. Paul dichotomy because the James/Matthew were considered anti-semitic for a while but largely because they had been used by people who were anti-semitic as propaganda, even at that its a very, very eschewed interpretation to find any anti-semitism in any of the new testament, the more I've learned about Jewish thinking and traditions, particularly from Martin Buber or similar sources the more I see it all as pretty consistent although becoming steadily more humanistic.

 

[Totenkindly]

Which is very consistent with Jesus teaching particularly after his meeting of the woman by the well, I think they were, I cant spell this, a syrophenician? And Jesus did initially respond in a tribalistic fashion but changed his line of thinking apparently because of the faith and persistence of the woman.

yes, there were a few such incidents. Woman at the well was one; there's also the one with the woman who chased Jesus down after he was trying to withdraw to rest for the day, and there was the discussion where Jesus asked her if it was right to give the children's food to the dogs, and the woman said even the dogs eat the scraps from the master's table, and Jesus honored her request because of her persistence. he actually honored a number of requests from non-Jews and did not make the distinctions some made; his treatment of and respect for women in general was another hallmark of his ministry.

the more I've learned about Jewish thinking and traditions, particularly from Martin Buber or similar sources the more I see it all as pretty consistent although becoming steadily more humanistic.

That's my impression too, although I haven't kept up with my reading enough to really comment more on it right now.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] I like your point about death and rebirth. In my new context of not being a literal Christian, it gives me more to ponder.

I got an ouroboros tattoo when I became separated to signify the death/birth cycle. I am dualistic in some ways, but overall more trialistic, because I believe with the optimal dual, a pristine energy can be made, which is actually an Aristotelian notion, being called the entelechia.



For now, I'm still calling myself a Christian because I can really think of no other monotheism that is an apt description of what I believe as much as Christianity. I just don't buy into the whole substitution, redemption, and salvation part of it. I think we are all going to 'heaven' and that we create our own hell on earth via our physical imperfections, in various forms. Only by focusing on, and feeding, our soul, which is what makes us, and all living things alive, do we stay close to God and his will.

I further think prophets/messiahs must come from time to time throughout history to remind man that God is love, and the ultimate meaning of life.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't think it is enough to believe in miracles.

For the sake of argument though, let's presume this actually happened, that Jesus actually died and all the stuff in the bible is real.

Let's also say that Satan is real, and that Satan, who even had contact with Jesus and persecuted him, must also know and believe that these miracles happened.

Believing in the miracles doesn't save Satan, now does it?

 

[EvidenceOfRedemption]

...

I believe what you are saying is that you do not believe natural phenomena could be altered by Jesus and therefore can't believe the account about Jesus... I believe what you are asking is if someone can be a Christian without believing in the literal interpretation.

To answer your question, no you cannot. The definition of Christian you're looking for is one who believes Jesus is God and creator, which is why He could create things quite literally when He took on flesh, and the permanence of death does not apply to Him since He is the only source of life.

To say you are a born again Christian is to say that the Spirit of God has risen in you, is alive in you, and is the source of your eternal life by the faith God has given you.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't think it is enough to believe in miracles.

For the sake of argument though, let's presume this actually happened, that Jesus actually died and all the stuff in the bible is real.

Let's also say that Satan is real, and that Satan, who even had contact with Jesus and persecuted him, must also know and believe that these miracles happened.

Believing in the miracles doesn't save Satan, now does it?

If one accepts the Bible stories to generally be true, Satan understands God a lot better than we humans do, but hates him. He sure wouldn't want to go (or be accepted into) heaven in that state.

It's not just belief in something's veracity, it's whether you have a heart that aligns with God's.

 

[sprinkles]

If one accepts the Bible stories to generally be true, Satan understands God a lot better than we humans do, but hates him. He sure wouldn't want to go (or be accepted into) heaven in that state.

It's not just belief in something's veracity, it's whether you have a heart that aligns with God's.

Bingo.

Also, James said:
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 

[Lark]

Interesting posts, its something I've thought about for some time, that belief in God means not simply suspecting or affirming the existence of a deity but "belief in" such as what people invest in anything which motivates particular choices and behaviour.

 

[sprinkles]

Interesting posts, its something I've thought about for some time, that belief in God means not simply suspecting or affirming the existence of a deity but "belief in" such as what people invest in anything which motivates particular choices and behaviour.

Exactly. And paradoxically, I think any God worth having will be able to tell the difference.

 

[cafe]

I consider myself both agnostic and Christian. I don't think any of us can know for sure about the existence of God, etc. I believe in God and that as the creator of all things, natural laws do not bind him. I believe in Christianity for a few different reasons, not least of which is that it is the belief system in which I was raised. I love the Bible. I love Jesus. I love the story of redemption. I've internalized a lot of the teachings and worldview. If I'd been raised in another tradition, I would probably have internalized it. Who knows?

I don't really have a problem with literalism, or sola scriptura. However, I qualify it with a lot of uncertainty about interpretation and context. Also, I recognize the apparent contradictions in scripture as more of a big tent thing: IOW, if one thing is said in one place and something else is said in another place, that means there is room for both things depending on the circumstance.

I guess the one thing I have trouble really accepting is the Evangelical version of hell. I can't make myself believe that everybody who does not accept Jesus Christ as their 'personal Lord and Savior' burns for eternity. I recognize that I could be wrong, but I can't think that way.

For myself, I mostly follow typical Evangelical lifestyle practices. Mostly. I read smutty novels and occasionally curse, which is considered bad. Oh, and I do not currently tithe. If, at some point do tithe, it will not be to my church, as is standard practice as I understand it. I would rather help the poor than feed a bloated bureaucracy and promote proselytization. Some of the way I live is habit. Some is conviction. Some is that I think it makes good sense, even if to only keep harmony in my family.

My political beliefs are atypical for (Edit: White American) Evangelicals, but I do not believe they contradict my denomination's statement of faith. Most of the people in my denomination would disagree rather strongly.

When it comes to things I'm not sure about, I believe in erring on the side of mercy and love. I try to show my love of God by my love of man. I fail with that a lot. As far as deciding what is right for other people, I go with more of the Wiccan philosophy: If nobody's being harmed, it's none of my beeswax. I only have to judge and rectify sin in my life, not anyone else's. Unless someone is being harmed without their consent. Then I need to try to do something about it when and where I can.

So essentially, I do a lot of mental gymnastics and deal with a decent level of cognitive dissonance to hold to my faith. There are those who would, for that reason, not consider me a real Christian. My general attitude toward those people is screw 'em! Which goes to show that I'm not great with the love thing, but there you go. I think I'm a Christian, so I'm a Christian. If you think you're a Christian, then you're a Christian and if people don't like it.

 

[Lark]

Exactly. And paradoxically, I think any God worth having will be able to tell the difference.

Hmm, do you mean that if one is an athiest or agnostic but avoids wrong doing you will find God's favour?

Perhaps, although I dont think that faith in God is like that, I think faith in God or knowledge of God is more about relief of the sorts of feelings which accompany doubt or uncertainty.

 

[Lark]

I guess the one thing I have trouble really accepting is the Evangelical version of hell. I can't make myself believe that everybody who does not accept Jesus Christ as their 'personal Lord and Savior' burns for eternity. I recognize that I could be wrong, but I can't think that way.

Rob Bell, who I consider an evangelical protestant, has proven that this is not biblically or scripturally based.