Doubts in Jesus as universal redemption

[FireDragon76]

Thank you for taking your time to carefully answer my questions, I myself struggle to find my own standing between the literal/historical/the physical 'actual happened event' and then the spiritual/symbolic/arketype dimensions.
I like Johnathan Pageau,who's eastern Orthodox. He believes for example, as I understand him, both in the physical resurrection and in the symbols. That many if not all things happening around us has Symbolic meanings behind them. We see and understand the world much through symbolism.

I am not familiar with Pageau but I can tell you, as somebody that spent time in the OCA and knew people that went to St. Vladimir's, alot of Orthodox clergy in the US, in the Greek church and OCA, are taught the same sort of curriculum regarding form and higher criticism of the Bible, that clergy of liberal Protestant denominations would receive.

So I'm curious, you don't think Lewis believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus body? With spiritual, does that mean something that is more in the realm of "beneficial thinking"?

No. It has to do with the fact I don't accept dualistic metaphysical presuppositions behind the notion that the only kind of real resurrection would be a "physical" one.

Like some truth, that is told in a spirtual manner to unlock new psychological insights of new potential of what it means to be human and how to act in a higher state of consciousness? If that makes any sense.

No, though I wouldn't exclude that altogether in its implications.

Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus new body was spiritual, as he could walk through things, not limited to the physical boundaries. Would you interpret that as historical, or something that didn't actually happened but is more Symbolic of some other truths?

No.

It goes on to say that he ate food and so on, to further tell the story that he wasn't some ethereal creature, but perhaps in a way had substance.

Those stories may not be completely historical on that point, since they only appear in one Gospel. But I don't think it really matters, either way.

What do you think of theologians that tries to prove or disprove the resurrection, are they doing it from a misunderstanding of what the authors tried to say about the Symbolic implications?

I haven't encountered any theologians trying to disprove the resurrection. Some Biblical scholars perhaps, but not theologians.

Those trying to prove, will point towards the ladies first seeing Jesus, post-mortem appearances to the disciples and the 500 people.
Those trying to disprove will tell you those 500 might have hallucinated, form their naturalistic world view that cannot allow such events at all cost. Miraculous one time events don't happen, even though the universe did. Or that Jesus had a twin etc.

They need to explain how otherwise healthy people just hallucinate something.

I also consider it a possibility that Jesus appearance, at least in some cases, was of the type we call an "after death communication". Either way, it has no bearing on my faith, owing to my metaphysical commitments. The resurrection really isn't about resuscitated corpses, and the modern controversy about it hasn't done alot of good to make Christianity any more credible or relevant, in my mind.

One thing to keep in mind is that I can accept some degree of mystery in religion. I don't think we have to have clear-cut answers on everything. A religion without the possibility of doubt isn't going to be very compelling for most people.

If I may ask, where do you land exactly? At one point you seem open that a guy physically healed people by some super-natural powers, but you don't believe that power could rise him from the death? Or what do you mean?

It's not that I doubt the power of God. I just don't believe we live in a three-tiered universe where Jesus flies up to heaven like a UFO. Ancient people may have thought of the world in terms of such a universe, but I don't see myself obligated to do the same.

 

[RileyG]

This isn't about me as much, but a friend of mine. She revealed her thoughts, coming from a Christian upbringing, going to church, she met a new person in the faith who asked a lot of questions. She then found out, that she wasn't actually sure if she believed in the good news of the Bible.
It feels more like a fairy tale story with some symbols she feels, and that it seems naive that one historic event in a small geographic location in history could be the saving act of God for all humanity. She's worried about Muslims, the Hindus etc. But she also sees great value in the faith, but has a hard time accepting it as The Truth, and finds it a bit silly it sounds like.

I get where she is coming from, as someone who had felt the same at some points.

How do you guys deal with these questions to someone who in uncertain?

Much could be said as to why I believe, but would love to hear your thoughts on how you would approach someone like that, and perhaps what convinced you?

Pray for them and assure them having doubts is normal. Temptation is normal. We grow and change over time.

Blessings

 

[Maniel]

I am not familiar with Pageau but I can tell you, as somebody that spent time in the OCA and knew people that went to St. Vladimir's, alot of Orthodox clergy in the US, in the Greek church and OCA, are taught the same sort of curriculum regarding form and higher criticism of the Bible, that clergy of liberal Protestant denominations would receive.



No. It has to do with the fact I don't accept dualistic metaphysical presuppositions behind the notion that the only kind of real resurrection would be a "physical" one.



No, though I wouldn't exclude that altogether in its implications.



No.



Those stories may not be completely historical on that point, since they only appear in one Gospel. But I don't think it really matters, either way.



I haven't encountered any theologians trying to disprove the resurrection. Some Biblical scholars perhaps, but not theologians.



They need to explain how otherwise healthy people just hallucinate something.

I also consider it a possibility that Jesus appearance, at least in some cases, was of the type we call an "after death communication". Either way, it has no bearing on my faith, owing to my metaphysical commitments. The resurrection really isn't about resuscitated corpses, and the modern controversy about it hasn't done alot of good to make Christianity any more credible or relevant, in my mind.

One thing to keep in mind is that I can accept some degree of mystery in religion. I don't think we have to have clear-cut answers on everything. A religion without the possibility of doubt isn't going to be very compelling for most people.



It's not that I doubt the power of God. I just don't believe we live in a three-tiered universe where Jesus flies up to heaven like a UFO. Ancient people may have thought of the world in terms of such a universe, but I don't see myself obligated to do the same.

I see, and yet not all of it. Thank you, it's really at the edge of my own understanding. Perhaps more like a child, archaic imaginations, how Lewis describe the Isrealites vision of God as a father, because they recognize his acts as fatherly, so it's a good but very incomplete take on who God really is.
But thank you, gives me something to ruminate on

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

How do you guys deal with these questions to someone who in uncertain?

Much could be said as to why I believe, but would love to hear your thoughts on how you would approach someone like that, and perhaps what convinced you?

Worship is inherent to human, we all consciously or subconsciously worship a supreme being whether we acknowledge or not. American dream is a god. Ivy League degree is a god. Gender equality is a god. Fame on social media is a god. Artificial intelligence is a god. "Global governance" is a god. Prince charming is a god. Zero carbon emission is a god. Big Pharma is a god. These are some common examples worshiped as a god in non-theistic religions disguised as science and ideologies, if you keep worshiping these false gods, they will lead you to depression and destruction. The only true and living God who created everything in the universe is the God of the bible. If you dismiss that God as a fairytale, it will leave a void in your heart, and the only way to fill this void is one of these false gods. When your friend is fed up with all these false gods, then she'll be certain about the one and only true God.

 

[FireDragon76]

I see, and yet not all of it. Thank you, it's really at the edge of my own understanding. Perhaps more like a child, archaic imaginations, how Lewis describe the Isrealites vision of God as a father, because they recognize his acts as fatherly, so it's a good but very incomplete take on who God really is.

More or less. Though I would use the word "imaginal" more than "imagination".

But thank you, gives me something to ruminate on

If you like following Vervaeke, you might want to look up Mark Vernon. He has a Youtube channel. He's an Anglican, but not of the Evangelical sort (he used to be, but he went through a period of religious deconstruction). That's where I found out about Owen Barfield and his influence on C.S. Lewis.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thank you for taking your time to carefully answer my questions, I myself struggle to find my own standing between the literal/historical/the physical 'actual happened event' and then the spiritual/symbolic/arketype dimensions.
I like Johnathan Pageau,who's eastern Orthodox. He believes for example, as I understand him, both in the physical resurrection and in the symbols. That many if not all things happening around us has Symbolic meanings behind them. We see and understand the world much through symbolism.

So I'm curious, you don't think Lewis believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus body? With spiritual, does that mean something that is more in the realm of "beneficial thinking"? Like some truth, that is told in a spirtual manner to unlock new psychological insights of new potential of what it means to be human and how to act in a higher state of consciousness? If that makes any sense.

Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus new body was spiritual, as he could walk through things, not limited to the physical boundaries. Would you interpret that as historical, or something that didn't actually happened but is more Symbolic of some other truths?
It goes on to say that he ate food and so on, to further tell the story that he wasn't some ethereal creature, but perhaps in a way had substance.

Why would the gospels go into so much details about Jesus after the resurrection, if they didn't believe he actually rose?

What do you think of theologians that tries to prove or disprove the resurrection, are they doing it from a misunderstanding of what the authors tried to say about the Symbolic implications?
Those trying to prove, will point towards the ladies first seeing Jesus, post-mortem appearances to the disciples and the 500 people.
Those trying to disprove will tell you those 500 might have hallucinated, form their naturalistic world view that cannot allow such events at all cost. Miraculous one time events don't happen, even though the universe did. Or that Jesus had a twin etc.

If I may ask, where do you land exactly? At one point you seem open that a guy physically healed people by some super-natural powers, but you don't believe that power could rise him from the death? Or what do you mean?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious on these subjects!

All the Apostles except one died martyrs' death because they adamantly held to the resurrection of Christ. Tens of thousands have rather died than to reject Christ. If they knew that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, would they have chosen to die rather than deny Christ? Why did the Pharisees put out the story that the disciples had stolen the body? It was because the body was missing and they didn't know where it was. All it needed for one person to say where the body was and it being produced, and Christianity would have died right there. The whole foundation of Christianity is that Jesus rose from the dead. If there was no resurrection, Christianity is dead, vain, and all Christian believers will perish.

All the Apostles, plus 500 other people witnessed that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them in person. They all were adamant that Jesus appeared to them in a human body. He ate and drank with the disciples on the lake shore in Galilee. Thomas actually handled His body after Jesus telling the disciples that He had flesh and bones just the same as them.

Theologians can disprove the resurrection all they like, but they are speculating, unless the bones of Jesus are located and absolute proof is obtained that they are the actual bones of Jesus. In 2,000 years, no one has been able to do that.

 

[Maniel]

More or less. Though I would use the word "imaginal" more than "imagination".



If you like following Vervaeke, you might want to look up Mark Vernon. He has a Youtube channel. He's an Anglican, but not of the Evangelical sort (he used to be, but he went through a period of religious deconstruction). That's where I found out about Owen Barfield and his influence on C.S. Lewis.

I will look up Vernon, Vervaeke is quite inspirational.

But hlep me understand, it's still quite a riddle for me with all these words and underlying meanings.

By imaginal, do you mean God as being imaginal, or the view of God as Father? Imaginal to me, sounds like something not true. But then you have people like Pageau and Peterson having various definitions of the menaing of true. Pageau would argue demons are true, in the sense that once you have a mental picture of a demon, and the sort of negative impact it can have, it's true and real. But in what sense real? An entity with a mind and free will like ours etc?

 

[FireDragon76]

I will look up Vernon, Vervaeke is quite inspirational.

But hlep me understand, it's still quite a riddle for me with all these words and underlying meanings.

By imaginal, do you mean God as being imaginal, or the view of God as Father? Imaginal to me, sounds like something not true. But then you have people like Pageau and Peterson having various definitions of the menaing of true. Pageau would argue demons are true, in the sense that once you have a mental picture of a demon, and the sort of negative impact it can have, it's true and real. But in what sense real? An entity with a mind and free will like ours etc?

Yes, it's similar to what Pageau is talking about, that's what I mean by imaginal.

"Imaginal" is roughly similar to the Platonic notion of the world of the Forms. It's also roughly analogous to the Buddhist concept of the Storehouse Consciousness, or Jung's Collective Unconscious.

I don't pretend to know what demons are exactly, but I think the idea of a literal Satan, as a kind of king with an army of obedient minions is more myth than reality, and reflects a dualistic and highly feudalistic worldview of Second Temple Judaism (modern Jews have a variety of beliefs about evil spirits and similar phenomena, if they believe they exist at all, in comparison). I know that imagery is common in Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and some forms of Protestantism, though, but I find it hard to square with the varied religious and spiritual experiences of people around the world.

 

[Maniel]

I am not familiar with Pageau but I can tell you, as somebody that spent time in the OCA and knew people that went to St. Vladimir's, alot of Orthodox clergy in the US, in the Greek church and OCA, are taught the same sort of curriculum regarding form and higher criticism of the Bible, that clergy of liberal Protestant denominations would receive.



No. It has to do with the fact I don't accept dualistic metaphysical presuppositions behind the notion that the only kind of real resurrection would be a "physical" one.



No, though I wouldn't exclude that altogether in its implications.



No.



Those stories may not be completely historical on that point, since they only appear in one Gospel. But I don't think it really matters, either way.



I haven't encountered any theologians trying to disprove the resurrection. Some Biblical scholars perhaps, but not theologians.



They need to explain how otherwise healthy people just hallucinate something.

I also consider it a possibility that Jesus appearance, at least in some cases, was of the type we call an "after death communication". Either way, it has no bearing on my faith, owing to my metaphysical commitments. The resurrection really isn't about resuscitated corpses, and the modern controversy about it hasn't done alot of good to make Christianity any more credible or relevant, in my mind.

One thing to keep in mind is that I can accept some degree of mystery in religion. I don't think we have to have clear-cut answers on everything. A religion without the possibility of doubt isn't going to be very compelling for most people.



It's not that I doubt the power of God. I just don't believe we live in a three-tiered universe where Jesus flies up to heaven like a UFO. Ancient people may have thought of the world in terms of such a universe, but I don't see myself obligated to do the same.

Just reread your replies on Jesus. And I'm still struggling to understand your take on reality, God, who Jesus really is, if there is any hope for you and me after death, do you believe in the afterlife? If I may ask, what is your view on this reality.

Let me know what you think if you got time, of my own attempt to understand our situation. I like the fractal pattern of a virtual world, a world created in our image with some little sentient AI, just hypothetical. If we attempted that it would possible go very wrong. But they would be totally ignorant of what the physical world would be like, as they live in the realm of digits. Their Big Bang, the time when the CPU and other processors generated the first piece of code that in time had been elegantly coded by a programmer to unfold into a virtual universe with laws that would gather all the potentiality of the virtual building blocks into more and more sophisticated possibilities, ending with beings experimenting with code-physics, possibly making myths and symbols to explain the mysterious world they live in.
If we were to visit these folks, we might be able using a virtual avatar hooked up to a VR headset, they would see us virtually, unknowingly by our physical nature.

Sorry if this bores you, but if you got this far, do you have any theory of God's relationship to us? You seem sympathetic to other religions, how do you view the way God communicates? Who is Jesus to you, the actual God incarnate, or did the deciples get that wrong in the same way Hindus and other religions have myths about millions of God incarnates? Or does it have factual historical evidence that we don't see elsewhere thus being a true myth?

 

[FireDragon76]

Just reread your replies on Jesus. And I'm still struggling to understand your take on reality, God, who Jesus really is, if there is any hope for you and me after death, do you believe in the afterlife? If I may ask, what is your view on this reality.

You're touching on a subject that I prefer to tread lightly around. Yes, I believe there is hope for life after death. Let's leave it at that.

Sorry if this bores you, but if you got this far, do you have any theory of God's relationship to us? You seem sympathetic to other religions, how do you view the way God communicates? Who is Jesus to you, the actual God incarnate, or did the deciples get that wrong in the same way Hindus and other religions have myths about millions of God incarnates? Or does it have factual historical evidence that we don't see elsewhere thus being a true myth?

I don't think Jesus is God in a human skinsuit. However, I don't see how Nicene Christology actually requires a person to believe that, anyways. At the church I attend, we don't use creeds as a test for membership- they are testaments, not tests.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I could maybe talk to her about the women finding jesus, and the 500 Paul refers to, among other historical arguments. If you have some more please share. The fact that there are so many letters and gospels are good testimonies as well. The guy from Cold Case Christianity also seems able to conduct it as historical on the grounds it's written as eye witness accounts in the way it's written.

Cold Case Christianity is "ok," but I had more advanced historical and epistemological studies in mind, really ...

... I mean seriously, whether or not the Bible is a form of truth is not dependent on it being either "inerrant" or a collection of "eye-witness" accounts. And even if it was, it's not as if those conditions would guarantee anything or remove all of our questions about having faith.

The best thing for faith is for people to let go of Fundamentalist type assumptions since those assumptions don't reflect the complexities and perceptual limitations that are a part of the human situation. Having them can just make it harder to "believe" by creating the false impression that there are slippery slopes at every turn when reading and evaluating the contents of the Bible.

 

[Maniel]

Cold Case Christianity is "ok," but I had more advanced historical and epistemological studies in mind, really ...

... I mean seriously, whether or not the Bible is a form of truth is not dependent on it being either "inerrant" or a collection of "eye-witness" accounts. And even if it was, it's not as if those conditions would guarantee anything or remove all of our questions about having faith.

The best thing for faith is for people to let go of Fundamentalist type assumptions since those assumptions don't reflect the complexities and perceptual limitations that are a part of the human situation. Having them can just make it harder to "believe" by creating the false impression that there are slippery slopes at every turn when reading and evaluating the contents of the Bible.

Do you have any sources in particular that you find convincing in regards to the historical truths? Which you perhaps find reasonable to build a case for Christianity and it's claims? Yeah Cold Case is probably more in the mainstream popular apologetics category.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you have any sources in particular that you find convincing in regards to the historical truths? Which you perhaps find reasonable to build a case for Christianity and it's claims? Yeah Cold Case is probably more in the mainstream popular apologetics category.

Maniel. You're friend needs to first understand the complexities of historical thought BEFORE worrying about building a case for Christianity.

This is the point I'm trying to convey here. There can never be a point of finality of meaning or truth for belief in the contents of the Bible, just as there can't fully be for any statements we might make for events that took place in the past. Belief in the Bible has to be understood along lines that don't assume the epistemic views of fundamentalists.

But do I have books? I do. But simply giving your friend an evangelical style book or two isn't going to solve anything by themselves.

If you want a book list, I have one placed in my personal section here on CF.

 

[Maniel]

Maniel. You're friend needs to first understand the complexities of historical thought BEFORE worrying about building a case for Christianity.

This is the point I'm trying to convey here. There can never be a point of finality of meaning or truth for belief in the contents of the Bible, just as there can't fully be for any statements we might make for events that took place in the past. Belief in the Bible has to be understood along lines that don't assume the epistemic views of fundamentalists.

But do I have books? I do. But simply giving your friend an evangelical style book or two isn't going to solve anything by themselves.

If you want a book list, I have one placed in my personal section here on CF.

That sounds right, I'm kind of looking in the dark myself, asking questions I barely know the answers to myself.
If you have nay recommadations to better understand the complexities of historical thought that's very welcome. Are we talking about hermeneutics, understanding the authors intentions of the texts rather than reading them as fundamentalists often do? Looking at the genres and so on. As I understand Genesis, it's in the mytho-genre, so one could very wrong by interpreting the 6 days as literal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds right, I'm kind of looking in the dark myself, asking questions I barely know the answers to myself.
If you have nay recommadations to better understand the complexities of historical thought that's very welcome. Are we talking about hermeneutics, understanding the authors intentions of the texts rather than reading them as fundamentalists often do? Looking at the genres and so on. As I understand Genesis, it's in the mytho-genre, so one could very wrong by interpreting the 6 days as literal.

No, I'm not specifically talking Hermeneutics. That sort of thing is related but should come a bit later.

Right now, becoming oriented with Epistemological Diversities, Historiography, the Philosophy of History, and the Craft of the Historian is what your friend should look at first.

 

[Maniel]

No, I'm not specifically talking Hermeneutics. That sort of thing is related but should come a bit later.

Right now, becoming oriented with Epistemological Diversities, Historiography, the Philosophy of History, and the Craft of the Historian is what your friend should look at first.

Would you recommend sources like Dominion by Holland? Showing how deeply imbeded Christianity is in our society and the way we feel, think and perceive the world? How what role would you ascribe these deciplines?

By Epistemological Diversities, different way of interpreting and perceiving reality, could one way be to show the differences between Western and Eastern way of thought? How science for example came to be, possible through which Europeans expected laws and order to the universe because of God. So that the believe in God actually got mankind closer to higher ideals of truth, by which Eastern philosophy were very pagan and mythological.

Not sure if this is the way you would turn the conversation?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you recommend sources like Dominion by Holland? Showing how deeply imbeded Christianity is in our society and the way we feel, think and perceive the world? How what role would you ascribe these deciplines?

I'm sure Tom Holland's book, similar to others I have, would be an interesting read, but that isn't exactly what I had in mind. This would fit more in line with Hermeneutical study of the value of tradition as a background influence on how we perceive the world.

More specifically, I'm talking more about the Philosophy of History and the Craft of the Historian, and I have more in mind a book like Heritage and Challenge: The History and Theory of History - Paul K. Conkin and Roland N. Stromberg, or something like it.

By Epistemological Diversities, different way of interpreting and perceiving reality, could one way be to show the differences between Western and Eastern way of thought?

That can be part of it, but not so much that. Instead, I'm referring to the different epistemological methodologies and/or frameworks by which any one person tries to understand the nature and makeup of "Knowledge" and how truth claims are justified differently by each methodology and/or framework. For instance, many people today try to use a Foundationalist framework. Other try a Coherentist method or a Pragmatist one, among a few others.

So, she may want to read a book or source on the various methods of Contemporary Epistemology to supplement what she finds out from the Philosophy of History. THEN, she can apply this to her critical assessment of the Bible.

How science for example came to be, possible through which Europeans expected laws and order to the universe because of God. So that the believe in God actually got mankind closer to higher ideals of truth, by which Eastern philosophy were very pagan and mythological.

Not sure if this is the way you would turn the conversation?

Not exactly. It would help, however, if I knew exactly which issues she's having specific doubts over ...

If her main concern is one involving the question about "what happens to those who've never heard the Gospel," then she want want to instead start with a study about the differences between Exclusivism and Inclusivism.

 

[Maniel]

I'm sure Tom Holland's book, similar to others I have, would be an interesting read, but that isn't exactly what I had in mind. This would fit more in line with Hermeneutical study of the value of tradition as a background influence on how we perceive the world.

More specifically, I'm talking more about the Philosophy of History and the Craft of the Historian, and I have more in mind a book like Heritage and Challenge: The History and Theory of History - Paul K. Conkin and Roland N. Stromberg, or something like it.

That can be part of it, but not so much that. Instead, I'm referring to the different epistemological methodologies and/or frameworks by which any one person tries to understand the nature and makeup of "Knowledge" and how truth claims are justified differently by each methodology and/or framework. For instance, many people today try to use a Foundationalist framework. Other try a Coherentist method or a Pragmatist one, among a few others.

So, she may want to read a book or source on the various methods of Contemporary Epistemology to supplement what she finds out from the Philosophy of History. THEN, she can apply this to her critical assessment of the Bible.



Not exactly. It would help, however, if I knew exactly which issues she's having specific doubts over ...

If her main concern is one involving the question about "what happens to those who've never heard the Gospel," then she want want to instead start with a study about the differences between Exclusivism and Inclusivism.

Well neither of us, I think, are as deep in our own understanding as to what a 'coherentist method' is, not me at least. But it gives me signs as to what I myself should take a look at. So thank you, will check out what these books are all about as well.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well neither of us, I think, are as deep in our own understanding as to what a 'coherentist method' is, not me at least. But it gives me signs as to what I myself should take a look at. So thank you, will check out what these books are all about as well.

Alright. Being that not all books are still in print, or that some subjects can be treated by shorter books or sources, let me know if you need help in pinpointing other sources to address her (or your) specific doubts and/or questions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well neither of us, I think, are as deep in our own understanding as to what a 'coherentist method' is, not me at least. But it gives me signs as to what I myself should take a look at. So thank you, will check out what these books are all about as well.

Maniel, here are some links to some shorter, free, but academically substantive sources on the topics I was mentioning. I don't think you need to buy books per say.

Philosophy of History (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

(see sections 3, 4 and 5)

Epistemology - Wikipedia (see the section on "Schools of Thought")

Inclusivism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org