The author of Matthew didn't completely omit J to the B because he liked the Elijah figure just fine, he just had "Christological" issues with Jesus being baptized "for the forgiveness of sins."

nunnington wrote:Shrunk

Surely Sanders is saying about the resurrection that the Jesus followers seem to have had resurrection experiences, but that it is impossible to discern what the reality behind them was. He is clearly averse to physical resuscitation, but many theologians also are. But then there seems to be disagreement at the time about this, in the light of Paul's discussion of 'spiritual bodies' and so on.

Do you mean there was disagreement, even in Paul's time, over whether the resurrection literally occurred?

stevencarrwork wrote:

Byron wrote:

stevencarrwork wrote:How was the new religion against Rome, when the earliest Christian writers would write things like 'Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.'

I never said Christianity was against Rome: I said the opposite, that it went to great lengths (another example helpfully quoted by you, above) to appease the Empire, most notably the execution narrative.

Why do I think there's some historical basis for Pilate ordering the crucifixion? Because, if the gospel writers had a free hand to make things up, they'd surely have written Pilate out altogether. The awkward slew of justifications don't entirely succeed -- he comes out looking weak, which is better than tyranical -- due to the millstone of Pilate killing Jesus. If the gospel writers weren't tied to a preeixisting tradition, why not just say, "The Pharisies took Jesus into a back alley and bashed his head in with a rock", and leave Rome out of it?

There was no historical compulsion to blurt out the historical fact that the Romans killed Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 2
You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.

As one Christian was unaware of this need to say that it was NOT the Jews that had killed Jesus, then there could have been no historical fact forcing Christians to say that Pilate had killed Jesus.

Paul writes in Romans 13
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

How could such a person have thought that the Romans had killed the Son of God?

I was just discussing this passage on another thread last week. My view is that this is "eyewash" intended to reassure the Romans that the Christians are not a threat to civil order. (I'm not sure how many copies of the letter were circulated or where, but it is significant that this occurs in a letter to the Church in Rome.)

Shrunk

When you say the resurrection 'literally' occurred, I assume you mean physically?

It's difficult to reconstruct the different views in early Christianity. Certainly there seem to have been believers who denied it, as in 1 Cor 15: 12, Paul says 'how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?'

Then we have the full physical resurrection belief; then we have Paul talking about a 'spiritual body', whatever that is. And Paul also has his vision of the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.

We also have odd passages, where no-one recognizes the risen Christ, as if he is different now, see Luke 24: 37, 'they supposed they saw a spirit'. But then there is the emphasis that he is physical, 'a spirit has not flesh and bones as I have', so presumably this is theological emphasis on the physical.

It's unclear what the Gnostics thought of the resurrection, but it would probably be seen as a spiritual, not physical, one, and some even argue that Gnostic traces are found in the NT. The gospel of Thomas simply doesn't mention it.

Of course, what is interesting is that different views are heard today, especially physical, spiritual and symbolic.

Marking my spot.

nunnington wrote:Shrunk

When you say the resurrection 'literally' occurred, I assume you mean physically?

It's difficult to reconstruct the different views in early Christianity. Certainly there seem to have been believers who denied it, as in 1 Cor 15: 12, Paul says 'how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?'

Then we have the full physical resurrection belief; then we have Paul talking about a 'spiritual body', whatever that is. And Paul also has his vision of the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.

We also have odd passages, where no-one recognizes the risen Christ, as if he is different now, see Luke 24: 37, 'they supposed they saw a spirit'. But then there is the emphasis that he is physical, 'a spirit has not flesh and bones as I have', so presumably this is theological emphasis on the physical.

It's unclear what the Gnostics thought of the resurrection, but it would probably be seen as a spiritual, not physical, one, and some even argue that Gnostic traces are found in the NT. The gospel of Thomas simply doesn't mention it.

Of course, what is interesting is that different views are heard today, especially physical, spiritual and symbolic.

Of course, you can define the word resurrection in various different ways, and so give it a whole continuum of meanings.

I'd suggest that the key question is: What happened to Jesus's bones? On this basis, you can set up two scenarios:

(a) John Robinson, the late Bishop of Woolwich, shocked a lot of his fellow Christians by saying that Jesus's bones are probably buried somewhere in present day Israel. If he's right, then it's open to us to talk about the resurrection in terms of psychology and sociology; that is, it can be seen as something which happened in the minds of Jesus's followers. There's no need at all to assume that anything miraculous happened, and, in any case, the lack of detailed evidence makes it impossible to reconstruct exactly what did happen. Personally, I lose interest that this point.

The alternative (b) is to say that, as the result of a miracle, Jesus's bones no longer exist on our planet. Perhaps they were part of Jesus's body after the resurrection, and so, presumably, went up to Heaven at the time of the ascension. Or, if you take the view that Jesus's resurrection body was made of a 'real', objective substance, but was fundamentally different from an ordinary human body, then, presumably, Jesus's human body, including the bones, were miraculously snuffed out of existence at the time of the resurrection.

The acid test is this: Suppose you'd been at Emmaus (where one of the most famous resurrection appearances is supposed to have happened) with a camera, and taken a photograph. If you'd got a picture of the risen Jesus, then (b) is correct; if not, (a) is correct.

Traditionally-minded Christians (and, up to about 50 years that would have meant pretty well all Christians) appear to believe some version of (b) - that Jesus's resurrection body had a 'real', objective existence, and they strongly reject the idea that we could think of it as a ghost, or as something existing merely in the minds of his disciples. For example, it's often claimed: if the resurrection wasn't a reality, why didn't the Jewish or Roman authorities simply produce Jesus's corpse? Obviously, that argument implies scenario (b) - producing the corpse wouldn't necessarily overturn scenario (a).

Personally, I'm always interested to know where an individual Christian stands on this. Many resist answering (just as they resist answering the question of whether Jesus had a Y chromosome, and, if so, where did it come from!). I interpret this resistance as evidence of muddle and fogginess, right at the heart of their belief system.

Am I being unfair?

I'm surprised you lose interest if a) is the case. I'm the opposite.

If b) was the case, then that's really strange. Something most peculiar happened, and it would be fascinating to find out what, but it doesn't really change anything. Even if there was some odd event that resulted in the bones of Jesus leaving the planet, we know that isn't how things usually work. It remains an exception.

However, if a) is the case, if something happened in the minds and experiences of the followers of Jesus which overcame their grief and depression at his death and their movement's apparent defeat, then I find that very interesting. Perhaps it could happen for me, as well. The resurrection claim is not just that Jesus died and then got better, but that death is defeated. And that is big news for someone who is going to die.

Will S

I think it's OK to say 'I don't know' to this question, as some Christians do today. There is also the interesting position that the physical resurrection doesn't actually add very much.

My own view is that the risen Christ is a cosmic pre-existent Self, which potentially enters into all of us, and in fact, into all things. Incidentally, for me, this also makes sense of the Virgin Birth, since this pre-existent Self was not born from a woman's womb, but has always existed (although 'always' is a misnomer, since there is no time in the Self).

I don't see this as a psychological phenomenon in the followers, but as an overcoming of the ego, and its dualistic reality, so that everything is One. But of course, the One becomes Two again, and the Two becomes the Many. But the Many can always fall back into the sacred womb (which is the One).

Emil wrote:I'm surprised you lose interest if a) is the case. I'm the opposite.

If b) was the case, then that's really strange. Something most peculiar happened, and it would be fascinating to find out what, but it doesn't really change anything. Even if there was some odd event that resulted in the bones of Jesus leaving the planet, we know that isn't how things usually work. It remains an exception.

However, if a) is the case, if something happened in the minds and experiences of the followers of Jesus which overcame their grief and depression at his death and their movement's apparent defeat, then I find that very interesting. Perhaps it could happen for me, as well. The resurrection claim is not just that Jesus died and then got better, but that death is defeated. And that is big news for someone who is going to die.

But isn't it a general truth that what somebody says isn't nullified by his death? A man may be executed as a common criminal (indeed, he may actually be a common criminal who has been justly condemned!), and yet it may be that what he said before his death remains true, important, inspiring? Perhaps the disciples of Jesus, after they had learnt to deal with the horror of their leader's death, realised that his ideas and his moral teaching hadn't died with him.

If that's all that happened, then death is only 'defeated' in a very limited (I'd say, trite) sense.

Surely, the 'resurrection' of Jesus isn't (in itself) at all interesting or important, unless something miraculous, something which violated the laws of nature as we know them, actually happened. That is, if it's simply a way of saying 'his ideas lived on', all we're doing is to say that they were good ideas (or, at least, that they were zealously promulgated).

Sorry. This may make me sound like an earnest evangelical (*) - which I'm not. But, on this particular point, I do see where they're coming from, even though I don't think there's a shred of decent evidence to support their factual claim.


(*) Or, indeed, it may make me sound like almost any Christian minister or writer in the, far-off, days when I was a lad.

nunnington wrote:I don't see this as a psychological phenomenon in the followers, but as an overcoming of the ego, and its dualistic reality, so that everything is One. But of course, the One becomes Two again, and the Two becomes the Many. But the Many can always fall back into the sacred womb (which is the One).

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're getting at. The only, possibly irrelevant, comment I can make is that, surely, 'overcoming the ego' is a matter of psychology?

Will S, I'm not sure you can ever verify a miracle. If it's a one-off event, an exception or clear violation of the laws of nature, then we'll never be able to get sufficient evidence to outweigh the immense mass of evidence supporting the laws. If, nonetheless, it was somehow absolutely clear that a miracle really had happened (I don't see how it could be), then I suppose we would have to redraft the laws, at least in those circumstances. Which would amount to saying that it wasn't actually a miracle.

Yes, it's a trivial point that people's ideas live on after them, but if their ideas are about something pretty major, such as the viability of a powerless, loving way of life, and if those ideas are bound up with the person, as was the case for Jesus, with his Messianic role, then the fate of the person is highly relevant. What was at stake was whether the way of Jesus, or the way of the Temple authorities was better. They conflicted. So we have to make a judgment about who, in the end won. Or to put it another way, which side was God on?

Emil wrote:Will S, I'm not sure you can ever verify a miracle. If it's a one-off event, an exception or clear violation of the laws of nature, then we'll never be able to get sufficient evidence to outweigh the immense mass of evidence supporting the laws. If, nonetheless, it was somehow absolutely clear that a miracle really had happened (I don't see how it could be), then I suppose we would have to redraft the laws, at least in those circumstances. Which would amount to saying that it wasn't actually a miracle.

Yes, it's a trivial point that people's ideas live on after them, but if their ideas are about something pretty major, such as the viability of a powerless, loving way of life, and if those ideas are bound up with the person, as was the case for Jesus, with his Messianic role, then the fate of the person is highly relevant. What was at stake was whether the way of Jesus, or the way of the Temple authorities was better. They conflicted. So we have to make a judgment about who, in the end won. Or to put it another way, which side was God on?

It's an interesting take on the issue. But is there any reason to believe that this was the point the authors of the Gospels were trying to make? That they did not believe (or want their readers to believe) that they were recounting an actual miraculous occurrence?

Well, there is no description of the resurrection itself, no lines that tell us what happened. People witness the empty tomb, meet the risen Jesus, but no one watched him rise. And the descriptions of the resurrection appearances are full of strangeness - difficulty in recognising him, he is solid but not solid, some see him and still doubt. In Mark's gospel there isn't even an appearance, just an angel (whatever Mark though that was) announcing that Jesus 'is not here.' And there is no appearance that is described in two or more gospels. Each writer deals with it in their own way.

All this does suggest that they were grappling with something that didn't quite fit as an event. I think it supports my line that the resurrection should be understood as an experience people had, rather than an event that happened to Jesus.

Emil wrote:Will S, I'm not sure you can ever verify a miracle. If it's a one-off event, an exception or clear violation of the laws of nature, then we'll never be able to get sufficient evidence to outweigh the immense mass of evidence supporting the laws. If, nonetheless, it was somehow absolutely clear that a miracle really had happened (I don't see how it could be), then I suppose we would have to redraft the laws, at least in those circumstances. Which would amount to saying that it wasn't actually a miracle.

Yes, this is very much Hume's classic argument, and I think that, broadly, it stands up. The only way in which I think a miracle might be verified would be by repetition e.g. if somebody could, in trial after trial, instantaneously cure eczema, or some other skin disease, by touch. This would certainly be a miracle in the sense of violating our, current, understanding of how the universe works, but, as you say, we'd soon stop calling it a miracle, and start revising our ideas of how the universe works. But, anyway, that's irrelevant to the present discussion ...

Emil wrote:Yes, it's a trivial point that people's ideas live on after them, but if their ideas are about something pretty major, such as the viability of a powerless, loving way of life, and if those ideas are bound up with the person, as was the case for Jesus, with his Messianic role, then the fate of the person is highly relevant. What was at stake was whether the way of Jesus, or the way of the Temple authorities was better. They conflicted. So we have to make a judgment about who, in the end won. Or to put it another way, which side was God on?

I don't think I really follow you. Putting it rather crudely, you can adopt a 'powerless, loving way of life' - and take the consequences. But, surely, it's a central tenet of Christianity that, if you do this, God will intervene decisively on your behalf - perhaps not in the way you want or expect, or in this life, but intervene he will. Ultimately, the consequences will be nullified on your behalf.

And putting it even more crudely, in my opinion, that's a delusion.

Which is not the same thing as saying that it's not worth taking the consequences - that is something for the individual to decide. To give a low level example: By all means be honest in your business dealings, only don't do it in the expectation of ending up wealthier than you would if you were, cleverly and cautiously, dishonest. Honesty isn't, necessarily, the best policy.

In this connection, I rather like the adage: '"Take what you want", says God,"Take it - and pay for it"', but it seems to me to be the antithesis of what Christians usually say - indeed, it's a thoroughly anti-Christian view of things.

No, it's not about God intervening decisively - that takes us back to miracles - it's about the followers of Jesus taking a long hard look at the horrid death of Jesus, which seems to totally invalidate the way of life he lived and taught, and saying that, actually, perhaps it doesn't. Resurrection, then, is coming to terms with the cross, perhaps even making a virtue of it.

One line you can take is to say that the failure of God to intervene to save Jesus, demonstrates that such a view of God is untenable. (This would have been news to most people two thousand years ago.) There is not interventionist God. Therefore, perhaps we had better do things not for reward, but for their own sake. As in your example about honesty in business. So the disciples say to themselves, Jesus got killed for leading a loving life. It doesn't pay, but it's what we're going to choose because it feels right, because it makes me a better person. And in fact, having made that choice in the light of Jesus' murder, I no longer have to fear the world's bullies.

Emil

Nice post. Yes, Jesus is abandoned by God. And Jesus does not leap off the cross, smite the Roman Army, and declare the kingdom. To which we might say, why not?

In my weakness is my strength, and love is not the way of the bully. Love or power over - that is the choice.

Roger Cooke wrote:I was just discussing this passage on another thread last week. My view is that this is "eyewash" intended to reassure the Romans that the Christians are not a threat to civil order. (I'm not sure how many copies of the letter were circulated or where, but it is significant that this occurs in a letter to the Church in Rome.)

I agree. Interestingly, the passion account from the Gospel of Peter goes even further than the canonical gospels in demonsing the Jews at the expense of Rome. It has Roman soldiers who've witnessed angels at Jesus' tomb converting, and then begging Pilate to keep schtum after they've reported in, to stop a Jewish mob from stoning them to death! [1]

nunnington wrote:
Nice post. Yes, Jesus is abandoned by God. And Jesus does not leap off the cross, smite the Roman Army, and declare the kingdom. To which we might say, why not?

This might be a rdical, out there explanation but how about this: Random jewish preacher dudes generally do not have the power to smite whole armies.

(Either that or perhaps the Romans had iron chariots.)

Emil wrote:No, it's not about God intervening decisively - that takes us back to miracles - it's about the followers of Jesus taking a long hard look at the horrid death of Jesus, which seems to totally invalidate the way of life he lived and taught, and saying that, actually, perhaps it doesn't. Resurrection, then, is coming to terms with the cross, perhaps even making a virtue of it.

One line you can take is to say that the failure of God to intervene to save Jesus, demonstrates that such a view of God is untenable. (This would have been news to most people two thousand years ago.) There is not interventionist God. Therefore, perhaps we had better do things not for reward, but for their own sake. As in your example about honesty in business. So the disciples say to themselves, Jesus got killed for leading a loving life. It doesn't pay, but it's what we're going to choose because it feels right, because it makes me a better person. And in fact, having made that choice in the light of Jesus' murder, I no longer have to fear the world's bullies.

(I've quoted your message in full, just to make sure that I'm not guilty of selective quotation!)

You say: 'There is no interventionist God. Therefore, perhaps we had better do things not for reward, but for their own sake.' (I assume that 'not' is a minor typo for 'no'.)

But an atheist will say: 'There is no God. Therefore, perhaps we had better do things not for reward, but for their own sake.'

How is your position any different from his? Well, OK, you could still adopt some kind of deism, under which a God made the world, but has no concern for what goes on in it on a human, or day-by-day, level. In other words, aren't you abandoning what's distinctive about Christianity, or even distinctive about theism?

It's a sort of Christian atheism, yes. It's a view that says that belief in an interventionist God somewhere out there, is no longer possible, and the death of Jesus reveals this. Do you know that bit in Mark's gospel where it says that at the moment Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple (the enormous curtain that hid the Holy of Holies) tore from top to bottom. Assuming this was put in as a metaphor for the meaning of the crucifixion, what it tells us is that the God of the Temple was suddenly exposed. The curtain tears, and behind it ... there's nothing. Jesus just died like anyone else. If anyone deserved to be rescued by a hand from the clouds it's him, but no hand, no rescue, no legion of angels.

So the disciples either despair, because the last best hope failed, or maybe, in time (more than three days, of course) they come to think that they might actually be better off without this daddy in the sky god. The cross was where God died and humanity grew up. Only a lot of Christians have missed the point.