Even IF Christ rose again. . . So what?

[Clare73]

We have an spirit which is redundantly spirit, and as far i know spirit can't die.
Angels don't have a body, but they lived forever since their creation, and if God doesn't destroy them they will live forever, we have also our spiritual part, i have discerned this myself so i don't have only an study or interpretation but actual proof for myself that we have a soul,
i disagree a bit that the soul is mortal though the soul is spiritual and cannot die.

I think that is probably right, although I have previously stated differently.

There is much in Scripture to indicate it, and nothing to refute it.
.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

A couple of reasons:

The human spirit is incomplete without its body, and

we must have a resurrection body (sinless) to enter/dwell in heaven,
where there will be full-time use of it.

Thanks for answering, but then heaven would have to be a physical place to accommodate a physical body.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for answering, but then heaven would have to be a physical place to accommodate a physical body.

Jesus has a physical resurrection body (Lk 24:37-43). Where is it now do you think?
.

 

[NBB]

Thanks for answering, but then heaven would have to be a physical place to accommodate a physical body.

We will have an spiritual body, like Jesus. What is an spiritual body? at least we wil be able to see other people and also touch them, and eat, (great dinner) but it doesn't get corrupted or feel any sickness or dies ever.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Jesus has a physical resurrection body (Lk 24:37-43). Where is it?
.

Since he could materialize as well as de-materialize it seemed to me that the physical nature is optional for him.

 

[Clare73]

Since he could materialize as well as de-materialize it seemed to me that the physical nature is optional for him.

Our resurrection bodies will be like his, so maybe it will be optional for us also.
.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Our resurrection bodies will be like his, so maybe it will be optional for us also.
.

I am good with that. But still, why doesn't he use it more to come visit with us?

 

[Clare73]

I am good with that. But still, why doesn't he use it more to come visit with us?

In his body, he can be only in one place at a time.

He is with us in a new and better mode, His Spirit is within all the born again at once, and all the time.

 

[aiki]

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian?

Why did any of those who made up the first-century Christian Church become believers? Because it was true. There were signs and wonders, as well, that helped to convince the very first believers in Jesus and to establish the authority of those proclaiming the Good News of the resurrected Saviour of mankind. And, of course, God's Spirit was at work, convicting people of their sin, illuminating their minds to the truth of the Gospel, and persuading them to faith in Jesus. And so, in the middle of pagan Roman culture, Christianity flourished. Even against terrible, sustained persecution, it flourished. This is why the earliest Christians became Christians.

Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order.

Well, the message of the Gospel is that it means a lot more than what you've indicated here. The first Christians preached that Christ's resurrection was not a mere omen, but a vindication of his claim to divinity and his teachings concerning the kingdom of God. Many pagans who heard the Gospel in the first century didn't just shrug their shoulders and wonder, but came to a saving, life-changing faith in Jesus. It doesn't appear, then, that you're speculation about their response is borne out in fact.

To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Many first-century pagans didn't take your view, even dying for their faith in Christ despite the "fundamental violation" of his resurrection.

I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this.

It was the heart of the Gospel message that Christians in the first century proclaimed to the pagan world. And within 300 years that message had transformed the Roman Empire and, in time, the world. The resurrection, then, did not present the sort of problem for pagans that you seem think it did.

But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews, I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

It doesn't appear that you have actually done what you describe here; for the facts of history defy your thinking. See above. The Resurrection of Jesus transformed the Roman Empire and the world and is still transforming lives today, 2000 years later.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

In his body, he can be only in one place at a time.

He is with us in a new and better mode, His Spirit is within all the born again at once, and all the time.

But he has plenty of time. He could make rounds. No one has seen him in years.

How great to have a cup of coffee with him.

Maybe we need to look for him in each other.

 

[Southern Stoic]

It seems I've lost track of this thread. I didn't mean for my original post to be a "drive-by" post. But now I'd like to respond to just one or two things.

Even the extreme alternative of there being no purpose at all for existence has no foundation to reason upon without usurping from that premise. The term 'God' in scripture before adding any imagery, is an axiom meaning the source of the energy that created all things including time. Therefore it's not logical to ask for proof that God exists according to the scriptural definition.

Okay, I totally agree with you here.

Respectfully, I find that Christianity presents a rational premise that there is a reason for a temporal existence, wherein the resurrection becomes easy to believe in.

Even if Christianity does give you a rational reason for temporal existence, I don't see how that (or anything, really) makes the resurrection (of Christ, and by extension, our own) easy to believe in.

 

[Southern Stoic]

Why did any of those who made up the first-century Christian Church become believers? Because it was true. There were signs and wonders. as well, that helped to convince the very first believers in Jesus and to establish the authority of those proclaiming the Good News of the resurrected Saviour of mankind.

Because its true, and because of signs and wonders. If it were that simple, many more people would be Christians right now (including, yours truly). I see no reason to believe in those signs and wonders, or to think they actually occurred. "The Savior of mankind..." Who said all mankind needs a savior, or the same savior?

Well, the message of the Gospel is that it means a lot more than what you've indicated here. The first Christians preached that Christ's resurrection was not a mere omen, but a vindication of his claim to divinity and his teachings concerning the kingdom of God.

I know that the first Jewish Christians taught this (it was part of their whole Judaic-worldview). The Gentile Christians taught this as well, since they were taught by the Jewish Christians. I know how ancient pagans responded, that's not my point. My point is that a pagan, from within his own worldview, would have no reason to think that Christ's resurrection meant anything at all, or at least not anything good.
I could respond to other things you've said, but I think it would just amount to reiteration.

 

[aiki]

Because its true, and because of signs and wonders. If it were that simple, many more people would be Christians right now (including, yours truly). I see no reason to believe in those signs and wonders, or to think they actually occurred. "The Savior of mankind..." Who said all mankind needs a savior, or the same savior?

I can't help what you will or will not see. But it was the teaching of Christ, his miracles and then his death and resurrection that convinced the first Christians to follow Christ. If you are determined not to believe, nothing offered to you in encouragement of belief will be persuasive. "There is no man so blind as he who will not see."

It is the Creator-God of the universe who says you need a Saviour, who is your Saviour. And He has said that He is the only way - whether you like it or not.

John 14:6
6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 ...God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all...

Believe it or don't. In love and grace, God offers you, through Jesus, an escape from the eternal penalty of your sin, but if you refuse it, He's not diminished one iota. But you will be. Terribly and forever. Choose love, God's love.

My point is that a pagan, from within his own worldview, would have no reason to think that Christ's resurrection meant anything at all, or at least not anything good.

And so, he'd have to be persuaded to a different view; hence, the preaching of the Gospel and all that it explains of what God has done to persuade people out of the darkness of their pagan beliefs into the light of His eternal kingdom.

Romans 10:9-15
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"

Merry Christmas!

 

[childeye 2]

Okay, I totally agree with you here.

Then I would think you would agree that to be rational/logical, a negative must usurp from a positive and that a positive does not usurp from a negative, hence life does not exist to create death anymore than the Truth exists to create a lie to undermine it. In the most basic truism of thought, The Truth must exist first before a lie. Wherefore a negative usurps from a positive.

Even if Christianity does give you a rational reason for temporal existence, I don't see how that (or anything, really) makes the resurrection (of Christ, and by extension, our own) easy to believe in.

The reason is because Love/empathy is a positive in the narrative. Fundamentally the Gospel presents that either I believe that Love/empathy is an attribute of the Creator manifesting in the creature or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware Creator. In either case empathy is a positive, but only in a worship of self does it become vain and corruptible. Moreover the Love/empathy displayed on the cross is extreme in an endurance and perseverance through suffering only for the sake of forgiveness. It therefore represents a purity that is not worship of one's self when believed upon and points to coming from somewhere higher than ourselves.

Ultimately the Gospel is not presented to be tested and proved, but rather we are judging ourselves. To the faithful in regards to valuing empathy as the attribute of God, it therefore trends towards believing that everything learned in the experience of a temporal existence in regards to the value of Love/empathy is not futile, since it's the Spiritual knowledge of God as a Person not a thing.

However the mind cannot hold on so easily to the hope/belief without comprehending a spiritual terminology that occurs in our psycholinguistics since the term 'believe' also carries a carnal denotation of 'superstition' which in application implies God as not existing. If we have a carnal definition of the term 'believe' in our mind that subconsciously denotes God as non-existent, then believing in the resurrection becomes untenable in one's heart.

And this is why I can view the resurrection as a perfectly rational necessity in a trust not dissimilar to Good will overcome evil for example, or that justice somewhere and somehow prevails over injustice. Likewise according to the spiritual denotation it's illogical to not believe/trust in Love/empathy as an attribute of the Creator Who brought forth Life so that we may know Him, which is a purpose that would be futile otherwise. In essence it's logical to trust in something pure and enduring rather than trust in the thing that corrupts it.

Try to read the following scripture with the understanding that the Gospel presents that either empathy/Love is an attribute of God manifesting in the creature or an attribute of the creature apart from any self aware God.
Romans 1:16-23
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

[John Helpher]

When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion.

It is reasonable that, if you believe someone has a wrong or inaccurate understanding of what is important in life, that that person could be convinced to change their thinking based on discussion.

1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead.

I don't know why you feel a need to put real in quotes like that since the if at the start already lets us know you're talking about a hypothetical. Anyway, yeah, it makes sense that if there is a creator of time, space, mater and life and death, that this creator would have the ability to take life and to give life.

2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

This is somewhat inaccurate because it puts all the emphasis on believing that a dead person became alive again. Jesus was much more than just a single event. Jesus himself did suggest that his miracles were meant to help convince people that he really was from God, but he also denied them miracles at times and even rebuked them when they demanded miracles. He said evil people chase after miracles.

The point of the miracles was two-fold; to genuinely help people (i.e. a demonstration of God's love for us) but also to act as a kind of "second witness" to his teachings. What Jesus really wanted was obedience. He said it over and over again that we should obey him because he was teaching us about the values of the kingdom of Heaven.

Most people back in Jesus' day missed this point and most professing Christians today also miss this point. There's no point in believing Jesus rose from the dead if you're not prepared to obey his teachings. Consequently, there are very few people teaching obedience to Jesus' teachings. It simply doesn't come up. Instead, they preach about miracles and church attendance, which then results in confused people like yourself who wonder why we should follow God just because he's able to do miracles.

Jesus is looking for people who want to follow him because they agree with his teachings. For example, Jesus said we cannot work for God and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other. He said our new, full-time job is to seek God's kingdom of love, first by going into all the world teaching others to do the same.

This isn't a religious ritual and it cannot be achieved with platitudes about faith. It can only be achieved by actually doing it. This is why Jesus said that anyone thinking about following him should count the cost, first, because he demands everything from us; our time, our possessions, and even our life.

God wants all people to come to the knowledge of why he's worth following, but he's not desperate. He's looking for those sincere individuals who are willing to act on his teachings, just like Jesus did. Jesus' death on the cross is a result of his obedience to God. If he had just kept his head down and not rocked the boat, no one would have noticed him.

In conclusion I would say that you should not follow Jesus just because he rose from the dead. You should follow him because you believe his teachings are worth following.

 

[Clare73]

We live in the post-modern world where the religious discussion (at least in the West) is often between someone with an atheistic mindset and someone with some form of Christian mindset. When discussing the historicity of the resurrection of Christ the final goal of the Christian seems to be that the unbeliever will experience a personal conversion to the Faith because of their discussion. This seems to be the idea: 1) If the Transcendent (God) is "real," its possible for a human being to rise from the dead. 2) If it can be shown from the historical record that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what occurred two-thousand years ago (and, of course, we grant that God exists) then there's no reason for the unbeliever not to become a Christian.

Now, let's say we actually lived two-thousand years ago. We all have our own ethnic gods and we worship them in our own styles, in our own lands. We have our own way of life, our own understanding of the gods, and our own beliefs about life and death and what lies beyond the grave. One thing the ancient pagans did not believe in is the "resurrection of the dead." Just one example of this can be taken from the New Testament: The Greeks mocked the apostle Paul when he mentioned the "resurrection" (Acts 17:32).

If I was part of a first century pagan community, why should I become a Christian? You can't prove it through use of the Scriptures (Old or New Testament). . . its not part of our story. Even if it can be "shown" somehow that Jesus did rise from the dead, I see nothing to show that this event means anything more than some kind of ominous omen (to a pagan, anyway), as it violates the natural order. To believe in someone based on that fundamental violation doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I don't know how a Christian could show an unbeliever "evidence for the resurrection" in light of this. It makes since in today's world when times are so philosophically materialistic and very often a simple selection to choose from (What are you, Christian? atheist? If you're Christian you believe in the resurrection of the BODY. If you're atheist you believe in the ultimate death of the BODY. Both views have varying degrees of materialism). If it's proven, Christ is divine. If its not proven, then back to a more atheistic, "rational" worldview. But when we take a broader gaze of history and take into account various pagan worldviews,

I don't see how the "resurrection" belief is tenable.

It may not be "tenable," but the record reports that he appeared to Peter, the twelve,
to more than 500 at the same time, to James, to all the apostles, and lastly to Paul (on the road to Damascus). (1Co 15:5-8)

You have to decide if you believe the eye-witness record
(Lk 1:2; Jn 19:35, 21:24; Ac 2:32, 3:15, 5:32, 10:39, 13:31; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:16, 1Jn 1:1)
or not, and if you do, then what you are going to do with the facts it presents.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

To the OP: The Buddhists have been talking about rebirth for 2600 years and the Vedantists for over 5000... I'm sure Christians would regard them as pagans.
So the idea of being reborn isn't a new one.
The Christians, so far as I can tell, believe in being reborn in a heavenly Kingdom on a transformed Earth. It's in the book of Revelation.

I'm a Buddhist, so for us the problem is opposite... we are trying not to be reborn!

 

[John Helpher]

I'm a Buddhist, so for us the problem is opposite... we are trying not to be reborn!

Working yourself out of existence? Is there nothing after the last reincarnation? Christians view this current life as one step among many. The Bible makes it clear that those who are resurrected at the return of Jesus will be given new bodies and responsibility ruling over the earth for a thousand years. Then, at the end of that time, there is a new/different transition which is only very briefly addressed in the Bible.

The idea is that we never stop learning and growing.

 

[1watchman]

I have seen the 'belief' concept as truly a relationship rathter than a belief. When I received the Lord Jesus into my heart very many moons ago it was a very personal relationship and not just a 'door' to our Creator-God. He has proved the truth and value to that and given me much peace, assurance, and blessings over a long life. I now look forward to being with Him forever in my Father's house above one day, and what "a day of rejoicing" that will be.

 

[mmarco]

Dear Southern stoic, I do not think we need a proof of Christ's resurrection to become a chrsitian. The fundamental reason why I believe in Jesus Christ, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God and it is certainly a truth. This concept is fully convincing for me, it proves itself by itself and makes superfluous any other arguments . I believe that Chirst suffered His Passion to help us to have faith in Him and trust Him, to make us understand that God loves us infinitely, that God is good and mercifull and that God is near to us so that we may totally trust Him and open our heart to Him, be in communion with Him and be saved.

There are other religions teaching that God is love, but the problem is to define what the word “love” means, because by itself it could be only a vague and generic concept.
The christian faith is unique because it gives a very concrete and unique meaning to the concept of divine love: in fact God’s love actualizes in the acceptance of a terrible physical suffering; the God of the christian faith loves us so much that He is willing to suffer a painful death in order to save us. In the christian faith, love is not only a theoretical and vague concept; Christ’s Passion is a clear and concrete realization of the concept of divine love which teaches us what is the true meaning of love. I think that this christian idea of divine love is the highest possible concept of divine love and it is the fundamental reason why I believe that Christ is God.

The existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God. I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer.
Nevertheless, I think there are solid rational arguments which confirms my beliefs.
Since I am a physicist, I would like to explain a couple of arguments based on a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges.

All what science shows about the physical reality is that it manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical models (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, the subatomic components of matters (quantum particles and fields) are actually only abtract mathematical concepts. On the other hand, mathematical models are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical model can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter. Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.
The most fundamental information science provides about the nature of the physical reality is that the physical reality manifests itself as a mathematically structured entity.
I think that atheism does not account for such fundamental scientific information about the physical reality and denies, without any rational arguments, the only rational explanation.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irriducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are. This is for me the most convincing argument against materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) and in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.