Being saved while believing in a non-physical resurrection?

[JohnClay]

Paul didn't want to list 500 names, even if he knew them all.

Then he could have at least said where the appearance happened. His mention of some of them being alive and others dead is just a waste of space - that doesn't make it any easier for the appearance to be verified. If he had mentioned the place then that would be really helpful. (though the others in the list identify the individuals like the apostles or the twelve)

Yes Paul met Jesus, who also identified himself to him.

That 1988 event would also involve "Jesus" identifying himself.

So what if people think they have seen Jesus today, it proves nothing.

It shows that it is possible for a large group of people to believe they saw Jesus - though it happened too late to be considered evidence of the resurrection.

It is the historical accounts that are important for demonstrating that Jesus rose from the dead.

I think these appearances were either mistaken identity, hallucinations or legends - maybe I will change my mind one day though.

 

[Tolworth John]

T

I think these appearances were either mistaken identity, hallucinations or legends - maybe I will change my mind one day though.

And your evidence for such a belief is?
The problem of taking God out of the picture means one believes that one is nothing more than a biological computer, responding to biological programing.
William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either."

 

[JohnClay]

And your evidence for such a belief is?

The short appearances of Jesus conflict with the idea of him having a continuous resurrected body.

The problem with taking God out of the picture means one believes that one is nothing more than a biological computer, responding to biological programing.

I believe there is an intelligent force that usually only intervenes in small ways. .
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance

 

[ViaCrucis]

A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.

Fundamentally the question is "Can heretics be saved?" Because a denial of Christ's bodily resurrection is heretical.

I don't believe salvation is a theology exam. Salvation is the Divine working of God through Jesus Christ; the objective fact that Christ did rise from the dead (not my subjective assent to that proposition) is what truly and ultimately matters. Whether I believe or don't believe, Christ still rose from the dead, and therefore salvation is still found in Him and what He accomplished.

At the end of the day it's not my place to say who is and who isn't saved. When, on the Last Day, Christ returns as judge and all must stand and give account He alone divides wheat and tares.

When I confess that salvation is by grace alone through faith, on Christ's account alone I am saying that salvation is the objective work of God accomplished through Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection; faith God's appropriation of that work to me personally. It is faith through which I cling to this Jesus who saves me, it is faith by which I hope in Him. It is faith that here I have forgiveness of sins, communion and peace with God, and everlasting life. But it is always on Christ's account alone--who Christ is and what He has done, objectively and once and for all, already.

So no, I can't say that the heretic can't have salvation; because the same Christ who died for me is the same Christ who died for them. The same Christ who died for all. Who rose from the dead, in victory over death, trodding underfoot sin, death, hell, and the devil and giving freedom to the captives, rescuing sinners, redeeming, healing, justifying and bringing us into the light of God's love and the hope that is found in the Age to Come.

Where the heresy of denying Christ's bodily resurrection is a problem is that it denies all of that. There is no Gospel without the resurrection. There is no hope, no freedom, no redemption. As such nothing can be preached. This is why St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 that those who deny the future resurrection of the dead also deny Christ's resurrection, and that if Christ did not rise then all of our preaching, indeed our entire religion is pitifully meaningless and empty. If Christ did not rise, then He is not the Christ, but just another failed messiah among a whole slew of failed messiahs. A "spiritual" resurrection is no resurrection at all, it's an entirely meaningless turn of phrase, like a square circle or dehydrated water.

Ultimately, the concern isn't whether or not your clergy friend can or will be saved, but rather what they are preaching to those to whom they have been given spiritual charge. And, frankly, a member of the clergy who is betraying something as fundamental as this has no business shepherding Christ's flock. That isn't an attack on their character, or a belittling of their accomplishments; but rather it's akin to saying that a doctor who does not believe in giving medical care to their patients probably shouldn't be a doctor--they are denying their vocation and are only going to bring harm to those to whom they are responsible toward.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lukaris]

A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.

I have not read the thread and I mean no disregard or disrespect to other posts but this jumped out at me.I wonder why some of these “ministers” claim to be Christian when saying such non Christian things ( 1 Corinthians 15:12-20).

It is one thing for one who does not know better who can still be saved if they otherwise lived by the Lord’s commandments (Romans 13:8-10 via John 5:22-30 etc. ) but to claim to represent the Gospel & deny the faith is heresy (the resurrection as St. Paul tells us should be common to all Christians whatever church you belong to).

 

[Tolworth John]

The short appearances of Jesus conflict with the idea of him having a continuous resurrected body.

I believe there is an intelligent force that usually only intervenes in small ways. .
Hearing songs with seemingly supernatural significance

The Bible does say that he assured into heaven.
By its nature a supernatural being is not detectable by the scien means at our disposal.

 

[JohnClay]

I've been attending church dinners and I've come across a very educated lady who is about 70. She's a Reverend (in "spirituality") and has two PhDs in medical/science type things. She believes that Jesus went into a deep meditation and they thought he was dead. Then he revived himself and had to leave the area because the Romans wanted to kill him. He ended up going to India and Europe and I think she said his grave was in India. She also said that Mary wasn't a virgin. She likes the Freemasons but is against the Catholic church (like how Jack Chick is - though she hasn't heard of him). She says that reason why the Freemasons go up to level 33 is because Jesus was crucified when he was 33 years old.

 

[Lukaris]

I've been attending church dinners and I've come across a very educated lady who is about 70. She's a Reverend (in "spirituality") and has two PhDs in medical/science type things. She believes that Jesus went into a deep meditation and they thought he was dead. Then he revived himself and had to leave the area because the Romans wanted to kill him. He ended up going to India and Europe and I think she said his grave was in India. She also said that Mary wasn't a virgin. She likes the Freemasons but is against the Catholic church (like how Jack Chick is - though she hasn't heard of him). She says that reason why the Freemasons go up to level 33 is because Jesus was crucified when he was 33 years old.

Conjectures like this are dependent on the very basis of what they deny ( in this case the resurrection of the Lord). No matter what one thinks of the original Christians, they believed the resurrection happened. They believed the Prophet Ezekiel had a vision of the resurrection of the dead ( Ezekiel 37:1-14). The prophet Daniel had a vision of the resurrection ( Daniel 12:1-4). There can be no concept of a general resurrection without the redeeming resurrection of the Lord ( 1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

 

[lismore]

You can't have a non-physical resurrection. Resurrection is physical.

 

[Clare73]

Sounds to me like she's not suited to be a priest....the bible is very clear on this one.

For more than one reason. . .

 

[Clare73]

You can't have a non-physical resurrection. Resurrection is physical.

The resurrection of Jesus certainly was.

Why would anyone think there is any other. . .outside unbelief?

 

[Clare73]

I’m familiar with the viewpoint , though I believe in a more traditional resurrection.

“Physical” has an odd meaning in this context. The resurrected Jesus was not a normal physical human. He could appear and disappear, and pass through walls. But he did have a physical existence, because he could be touched, and he could be recognized (although he wasn’t always). Paul refers to this as a resurrection body, and says that it’s a different nature from our physical bodies. I’ve seen the term “trans-physical” used.

The Gospels tell us that the tomb was empty. What does this mean? Jesus wasn’t a zombie. The corpse wasn’t simply reanimated. While the Bible doesn’t quite say this, I think most Christians read the story as saying that his body was transformed into the transphysical existence. So it’s not a resuscitation. but a transformation.

People like what you’re talking about believe Paul’s witness, but don’t see it as a transformation of Jesus’ original physical body. Rather, they think the resurrected form is independent of his original physical body. I’ve seen varying opinions on how close to physical his trans-physical existence was, varying from something reasonably close to physical to a vision. But those I’m familiar with all think the resurrected Christ is real, and accept Paul’s witness to him.

It’s clear that this is at least possible. Jesus’ resurrection is the forerunner of our own resurrection. But whenever this happens, many bodies will have decayed. So while Paul says those who are alive will be transformed, but those whose body aren’t around will have a trans physical existence too. So Jesus could have had a resurrected existence independent of his original body.

I think the empty tomb was real. I don’t think Scripture describes the exact process that produced Jesus’ resurrected trans-physical existence. I’d assume it was the kind of transformation that Paul says will happen to those who are alive at the End, i.e.a transformation of his original body. But I also accept fellow Christians who think the resurrected Jesus was real, but the empty tomb was not.

Paul states that the body that goes into the ground comes out of the ground transformed into a spiritual (sinless, immortal, glorious) physical body.

Surely no one doubts God's power to operate outside the laws of nature.

 

[Clare73]

I'm saying that verse 6 could be based on a real event, but unlike the 1988 appearance we don't have photos to check if the appearance looked like how Jesus was supposed to look.

I think my explanation is better than Richard Carriers at least:
Then He Appeared to Over Five Hundred Brethren at Once! • Richard Carrier
I think he is saying it was just a mass hallucination

Then it is the only one in recorded history. . .and contrary to science, since hallucinations are generated by and originate with the individual experiencing it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

If Jesus did not rise bodily, then Christianity is a pointless religion.

That's because literally everything about Christianity depends on whether or not Jesus did or did not rise--actually rise.

One can find good moral philosophy in lots of places.

But the only place you can hear the Gospel is Christianity, because the Church believes she has been tasked with the purpose to preach the Gospel, of the objective truth that God has, in Jesus, defeated the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil. Because Jesus really died, and Jesus really rose from the dead, and Jesus really is coming again.

There's no Gospel without an empty tomb.

That's why it's been said, in many ways, that everything--everything--stands or falls on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.

If Jesus did rise, nothing else matters.
And if Jesus did not rise--nothing else matters.

If Jesus did rise, then that's the THING, that's the universe-shaking event that changes literally everything. We can prattle on and on about theology, about good morals, about this or that--but at the end of the day if Jesus did in fact rise from the dead then that means everything really is different now. The world is a fundamentally different place because Jesus rose from the dead, if He did rise from the dead. Regardless of anything else we observe in the world, if Jesus rose, things are different. That lone event changes EVERYTHING.

But if Jesus did not rise, then anything we might prattle on about as it pertains to religion doesn't matter anyway. If Jesus did not rise, then all of our talk of salvation, or of heaven, or things like the Trinity, etc--none of that matters if Jesus did not rise because it's all just religious buzz words.

If Jesus rose, that means everything. If Jesus did not rise, then anything else we talk about here is just noise.

It's not the salvation of the individual who doesn't believe in Jesus' resurrection that would concern me (that's in God's hands). What does concern me is that someone in a privileged position of proclaiming the Gospel does not believe in that Gospel, and so no matter what else they may say, it just doesn't matter.

If Jesus did not rise, then why would we even bother with going to church, or having pastors/priests? What exactly are they pastoring with? If I wanted to go to a self-help seminar, I can do that without a church.

As such, it's being dishonest. It's cosplay. No different than a doctor who says they don't believe in germ theory, or a firefighter who doesn't believe that fire exists.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lismore]

The resurrection of Jesus certainly was.

Why would anyone think there is any other. . .outside unbelief?

I really have no idea. God Bless You

 

[hedrick]

Paul states that the body that goes into the ground comes out of the ground transformed into a spiritual (sinless, immortal, glorious) physical body.

Surely no one doubts God's power to operate outside the laws of nature.

You'll need to give me the citation for that. Paul speaks of a spiritual body. "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44)

I don't think you'll find him speaking of the resurrection body as coming out of the ground or physical. Certainly it's real. In the Gospels people could touch it. But Jesus also appeared and disappeared. So it's something new, which was Paul's point. Whether the term "physical" is the right one is really a matter of judgement, as long as no one thinks it's just our current body brought back to life with no change.

"For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality." (1 Cor 15:52-53)

But Paul rejects the term physical, so it's hard to claim that others who reject it are wrong, as long what they mean is reasonable. Many people who deny the physical resurrection think Jesus wasn't really there - it was an illusion of some sort. That is inconsistent with the Gospels.

It's worth noting that the term "physical" may have meant something different to Paul than it does in modern English. For us it's fairly neutral. It refers to something as part of normal world. For Paul there was a bit more of an opposition between physical and spiritual. The term physical referred to the "natural man who lives without the eschatological gift of the πνεῦμα and who thus belongs to the world" (TDNT)

 

[aiki]

A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical.

Then she is dimissing the clear, explicit teaching of Scripture, which suggests she has a very liberal bent to her view of her faith. Steer clear. Such a bent views the Bible mostly as myth and Jesus as a largely unknown figure of history, exaggerated into the incarnate God-Man of Christianity by his followers. There is neither God nor Saviour in this Jesus.

If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved?

I don't see how. The apostle Paul explained why:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.

Why, then, bother at all with Christianity? For that matter, why bother with any religion? Create your own religion, for all the actual difference to what happens beyond the grave that it will make. If Christ is not raised from the dead, we all die and that's the end of our story, whatever religious beliefs we take up prior to dying. Only Jesus said he would die and rise from the dead and then did so, vindicating his claim to divinity and all that he taught.

 

[Lukaris]

Our resurrection is spiritual and physical. A saint of the Orthodox Orthodox Church ( & Catholic in this case) testified, “ He ( Jesus Christ) manifested Himself to us in soul, body, & divinity so that, as God, He could deliver soul and body from death.”

St Thalassios of Lybia ( 7th century AD) quoted from Philokalia vol.2, 4th set of 100 texts ( #59).

 

[Mark Quayle]

A female Anglican priest I like to talk to believes that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't necessarily physical. I'm not sure of the technical term. If a person is overwise a Christian (e.g. they put Jesus first and are sorry for their sins) but just doesn't believe that Jesus rose physically, are they saved? They could believe that Jesus appeared in hallucinations - or my theory, that it involved mistaken identity and maybe legends/rumours. Or it was intended to be symbolic/parables.

For whatever it is worth, those of us who "have it right" still don't know the fullness of the truth intellectually. I can believe that God may perhaps save some who haven't even yet heard that Christ rose from the dead.

 

[Clare73]

You'll need to give me the citation for that. Paul speaks of a spiritual body. "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:44)

In the Greek, that's "If there is a natural body."

I don't think you'll find him speaking of the resurrection body as coming out of the ground or physical.

"The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
(1 Corinthians 15:42-44)

Two terms are in play here that Paul uses in a specific way rather than common way, one of them originating with Paul himself: natural body and spiritual body.

Natural body is the perishable, corrupt, weak, sinful (physical) body. (1 Corinthians 15:50)

Spiritual body is a NT term originating with Paul and used by no one else in the NT epistles.
By this term, Paul means the imperishable, incorruptible (immortal), not-characterized-by-sin physical body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).
He calls it spiritual in contrast to natural, and not in contrast to physical, material, or corporeal.
Paul doesn't use the word "spiritual" to denote the non-physical, non-material, non-corporeal.
He uses it to denote the realm of spirit, usually the Holy Spirit.

So when Paul speaks of a spiritual body, he is not speaking of a non-physical body,
but of the imperishable, incorruptible, sinless physical body of the resurrection,
in contrast to the natural body which is perishable, corrupt, weak, sinful.

Certainly it's real. In the Gospels people could touch it. But Jesus also appeared and disappeared. So it's something new, which was Paul's point. Whether the term "physical" is the right one is really a matter of judgement, as long as no one thinks it's just our current body brought back to life with no change.

"For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality." (1 Cor 15:52-53)

But Paul rejects the term physical, so it's hard to claim that others who reject it are wrong, as long what they mean is reasonable. Many people who deny the physical resurrection think Jesus wasn't really there - it was an illusion of some sort. That is inconsistent with the Gospels.

It's worth noting that the term "physical" may have meant something different to Paul than it does in modern English. For us it's fairly neutral. It refers to something as part of normal world. For Paul there was a bit more of an opposition between physical and spiritual. The term physical referred to the "natural man who lives without the eschatological gift of the πνεῦμα and who thus belongs to the world" (TDNT)