So what about that resurrection thing?

[John Gauger]

Poll question: So what about that resurrection thing?

It seems to me that a lot of the impossibilities mentioned in the bible are often written off as metaphors in favor of being dismissed outright as myths. One thing I have never seen discussed this way is the reported Resurrection of Christ. I don't know if that's because it is so central to the Christian and many of those advocating a metaphoric interpretation are themselves Christians (though by no means exclusively) or what.

So what do all you guys believe about the matter?

[boobooday]

1. Ancient narrative structure

Recycle and reuse as necessary . . .

[bluerum]

2. It IS a metaphor. What - do you believe someone floated up into the sky?

The cycle of death and rebirth is central to many beliefs, religions and spiritual paths. One must give up parts of oneself to become something new.

In christianity, when one becomes a believer they are reborn. They give up parts of themselves for a new path.

In the case of Jesus he gave up his life completely and followed the will of his father without any expectation of rebirth. Resurrection was a bonus.

[John Gauger]

8. No, I think it's a myth.

It's fabricated, just like every other myth throughout human history. I know it never happened (though for the sake of discussion I am willing to play devil's advocate.) But in the bible there are a lot of stories. Some are obviously false, but were meant to be taken literally, such as Jesus standing on a mountain top and looking at the whole earth. That couldn't have been a metaphor, because the Hebrews, never having read Aritosthenes, thought the earth was flat. Not much to speak of there, it was a simple mistake. Then we have the parables. Take the story of the prodigal son - it's never presented as having a positive truth value. It's pretty indisputably metaphorical. There's not much to argue over there (except for the questionable morality of the tale, but that's another issue entirely.) But not everything falls into one of those two categories. The majority of these bible stories are not obviously one or the other. So we are left guessing whether or not they were actually supposed to be believed as fact. And the Resurrection, the most important event in all the bible, falls into this murky middle ground. What I want to know is whether or not the story was ever intended to be believed as true.

And I have to object to your assertion that Jesus did not know he would be resurrected. He said that he would spend three days in the fish's belly, just like Jonah. What is this referring to if not Jesus's time in hell? (Yes, I know he was only dead for forty-six hours, but everybody else seems to gloss over that, so why don't we?)

[bluerum]

12. The entire bible is metaphor.

It is fabricated - but fabricated with a kernel of spiritual truth at its center.

I can't say that I am believer in christianity but I do belive in the power of myth, metaphor and storytelling.

The point about Jesus not expecting anything was that he did not forsee a resurection and gave up his life in an act of trust and belief that following his father commands was the right thing to do.

One interpretation of this metaphor for us mortals is that we allow ourselves to be transformed into better more Christianity correct versions of ourselves.

[John Gauger]

16. Do you mean to say that no part of the bible

when it was written, was intended by its authors to be true - they never thought any of what they wrote was going to be believed by anybody? And if it was never intended to be believed, why do so many people believe it?

I don't know what "a kernel of spiritual truth" means.

I don't know that none of it was ever supposed to be taken as literally true. If we are aware from the outset that Jesus did not exist, why do we need to be convinced that he is the Son of God? Why do they go to such great length to show that Jesus fulfilled all of the Old Testament prophecies? If it's a story, they can just say, "This guy is the Son of God." Since we already suspending our disbelief, we won't bother questioning it, because it's just a story. Whether or not it actually happened has no material value, and thus the prophecy are not necessary. Again, we can just take the narrator's word for it.

And again, I don't agree that Jesus was unaware that he would be resurrected. He said that he would be back after three days.

[bluerum]

18. I certainly cannot speak for the authors intentions. I am speaking of my

personal beliefs.

[bluerum]

19. "Kernel of spiritual truth" - something that has relevance to human spirituality.

[John Gauger]

21. I should have made myself more clear.

I don't know what "spirituality" is. To me, it's one of those funny words that crops up every once in a while but for whatever reason you don't know what the word means. So when you say that the bible has stories that, while they may not be true, bear relevance to human spirituality, I don't know what that means.

[bluerum]

24. It is a tough concept. I am not even going to try to explain it beyond

saying that part of it is that part of ourselves that keeps us connected to nature.

There are many different explanations of it - I would encourage you to explore those if you truly have an interest.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. The Qur'an says

that Jesus was never crucified, but rather brought to heaven by God.

Sura 3, line 55, as given in three different translations (translation title in bold type):

YUSUFALI: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
SHAKIR: And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.055

Interesting to read the verses following this one at the citation, as they explain the Muslim viewpoint that Jesus was a man, like Adam--both were prophets, but created by God in the same way.

[Igel]

25. There's a more recent thread that I thought related to this

issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x173414

Apparently the idea that the crucifixion was somehow related to a more bloodthirsty Xianity was enough for the writers. They saw the timing as completely irrelevant, and tied it in with the "body and blood" in the eucharist.

But I suspect the timing are not entirely irrelevant. The timing--the truly rendering of Western Xianity as bloodthirsty is timed with the conquest of Spain and the intrustion of conquerors into SE Europe, the loss of N. Africa and even an attempted--and repulsed--invasion of France. Either Western Xianity (viz. it's leaders) found a way of making the usual bloodthirstiness of rubes serve its interests and avoid being conquerored, or it was obvious that it would be overriden and the Xians in the West, its leaders and churches, would have the same fate as in the east. Not only did it serve local leaders immediate needs, but also rather longer-term interests. Having Sicily attacked--amidst some local subversion--probably caught the attention of those in Rome if Spain and France didn't.

But the crucifix itself is a repudiation, in spades, of precisely the view of the invaders. It's the mostly glaring crucial difference between Jesus and Issa, the one that nobody can overlook: Jesus was crucified, killed by the Romans in a humiliating manner that even the pagans found made him unworthy as a person and rendered him incapable of being God's chosen--it's a "hard reading"; Issa was not crucified, and preserved his human honor and was given honor by Allah.

Islam just picked up the "righteous go to heaven when they die, sinners go to hell" motif that's really hard to get out of the NT text, but is a given of Byzantine theology.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Aramaic and Hebrew are metaphorical languages

It is important when studying these languages to realize that. The Bible changed greatly in how it was interpreted once it was translated into Greek. There are interesting works by Neil Douglas-Klotz that explain the significance of this. Check out "Desert Wisdom" and "Prayers of the Cosmos" for more information.

[TZ]

5. Interesting.

I don't really have a valid opinion on this being a jew/atheist but it has always been my impression that most Christians I know, believe it as a literal event, a miracle that is proof of Jesus' divinity.
I will be most interested to see believers thoughts on this.

[uberllama42]

6. What's the difference between a metaphor and a myth?

Is a myth something one is expected to believe, while a metaphor is merely read for meaning, with it veracity of no concern?

[John Gauger]

9. Exaclty.

A myth is intended to be believed literally, while a metaphor is not intended to be believed, so the fact that it was fabricated is of no concern.

[uberllama42]

11. Well, a myth is easier to demolish

If your aim is to debunk Christianity, then reading the Resurrection as a myth is a better tack. I can't speak as to what the professional exegesis has been on that story, but my general impression is that most Americans do take the story literally.

[bluerum]

13. You can't debunk something that was never intended to be taken literally.

To say that these things (crazy events described in the bible) are crazy and could never have happened misses the point dramatically. Taking these events literally also misses the point dramatically, and adds a dimension of dense stupidity.

[uberllama42]

15. How do you know that these things were never intended to be read literally?

Can you cite some early theologians who explicitly discuss the stories in the bible as metaphor rather than fact? I completely agree that the stories are much more useful as metaphors, but that doesn't mean that they were not written to be taken as fact.

edit: spelling

[bluerum]

17. The only things that matters is if YOU think it should be read literally.

I don't - although I have to restrict my comments primarily to the new testament.

And I don't have the citations you ask for at hand. But you can start with "Misquoting Jesus" for some of theological arguments and you might even try "The Hero With a Thousand Faces" for perspective on myth and metaphor.

Personally, I very much suspect that if some of the events that happened in the bible actually happened, there would be geological evidence as well as some archival records of dates and places. The fact that there are neither does suggest to me that these things never happened.

Now, if the most educated people of that period (those who could read and write) took the time to record something as cataclysmic as a great flood and meant it to be taken literally, then they could easily have provided some detail on when and where. My guess is that they intended their writings as stories and metaphors for believers.

Scientific and academic writings from the period exist and they provide detail that we use in the classroom and the real world every day.

[uberllama42]

20. Again, I'm not saying they should be read literally

or trying to imply that you read the stories literally.

I think it's an interesting academic question, whether or not the biblical stories were intended to be literal. The original meaning of the writings has a bearing on what metaphorical significance they have for modern readers. I think JG makes some good points about details in the Gospels that wouldn't be there if they were merely metaphorical.

Thanks for pointing me toward those two books. I will check them out.

My understanding is that the early books of the Old Testament were recorded from oral traditions of various Hebrew groups which were not always in complete agreement with each other. There are some false assertions that would have been easily verifiable if the authors had been concerned with evidence. There is the assertion that insects have four legs and that hares are ruminant animals. The same thing happened in writings by Greek philosophers- the famous assertion by Aristotle that women had fewer teeth than men, for instance. No one practiced scientific rigor at that time. Lack of attention to some of these details does not mean that the texts were not meant to be taken literally.

Due to the varied authorship of the books of the bible, it is also possible that some were intended to be literal accounts and others were written as parables. That runs into the exegetical problem of distinguishing the one from the other, and pretty much precludes the bible form being the inspired word of God. But that is another discussion.

[bluerum]

23. I like the last two 's of your post as they point out that historical

context is a critical consideration.

I am always intrigued when we start applying current standards of scientific rigor and understanding to ancient theological work. AFAIK modern science has not located, identified or demonstrated the existence of heaven, hell, purgatory, the kingdom of god, the holy trinity, the devil, angels, the holy ghost etc. etc. At the same time, we find it perfectly acceptable to speak of these things as if we could hold them in our hands in the context of a spiritual or theological discussion. Does this not suggest that we (for whatever reasons) suspend the requirement of scientific rigor when we speak of spiritual things and beliefs?

Hmm. My only point is broken down into several distinct but connected thoughts:

1. The oral traditions were handed down orally (duh), for perhaps generations.
2. The relatively educated writers (scribes) of the bible recorded the oral traditions.
3. As written language evolved oral traditions over wide geographical areas were recorded with little intermingling (until much later).
4. The written word was re-written, many times, by those of lesser or greater education, with lesser or greater interest in propagating their own beliefs. Also keep in mind the influence of the simple typo.

My only thesis: If it was possible to provide supporting historical fact, observation or detail to support biblical work as literal historical fact, I very much expect that it would have been provided. The fact that it was not provided suggests a metaphorical nature for the texts.

[John Gauger]

14. I'm not trying to demolish it.

I'm just trying to find out what people believe.

If I were trying to demolish it, I would attack the idea of it being true, since it's impossible. But I don't walk away that easily. I would also attack the ideas that the metaphor represents, because that's the only way to demolish a metaphor.

But again, that's not what I'm trying to do here.

[RC]

7. You missed one

"Lifted from another religion."

[John Gauger]

10. Yeah, but that doesn't speak to my central question.

If it was lifted from another religion, it can still be intended to be believed literally, or it can be intended to read as a metaphor. Supposing it was lifted from another religion, were the pilferers intending people to believe it or did they expect their followers to understand that it was just a story?

[TechBear_Seattle]

22. It comes from a period when gods were resurrecting left and right

During the Roman Empire period when Christianity (as distinct from the teachings of Rebbe Jeheshua) was emerging, resurrecting gods were de rigeur among the religiously inclined citizens. Isis, Cybele, Persephone, Dionysis, Mithra and Orpheus were all worshipped in mystery religions centered on either the principle deity's death and resurrection (or at least descent into and return from the Underworld) or the deity's involvement in the death and resurrection of another deity. Given the number of Roman educated men and women attracted to very early Christianity, it would have been amazing if Christianity had not developed into a mystery cult.

I'm not sure if that would mean "Fabricated" or "Metaphor."

[bananas]

26. Other - Jesus was a mystic, like Iron Crutch Li

http://www.east-asian-history.net/textbooks/PM-China/ch7_main.htm

Li Tieguai's name literally means Iron Crutch Li. He is *typically depicted* as a cripple, with one leg bent and deformed. He walks with an iron crutch, and always carries a bottle gourd (hulu), an important symbol in Chinese culture that can stand for the universe in its primordial state (the Daoist dao), and, by extension, longevity. According to his legend, Li pursued the Daoist lifestyle by living as a hermit in a cave. There, he learned the mysteries of Daoism from none other than Laozi. Soon, Li was able to take leave of his body by sending his spirit out of it (recall my doubts at the start of this chapter about there being a major de facto difference between the flesh vs. spirit dualism of western thought and the idea of different types of qi in Daoism). One day, Li took leave of his body to go on a long trip and instructed a disciple to look after the inanimate body until he returned. To make a long story short, thinking Li would not return, the disciple cremated the body. When Li's spirit returned, he had to inhabit whatever body was available in the area, which happened to be that of a recently-deceased cripple. Having inherited such a body, Li was able to use it for medical experimentation, finding various ways to cure his own afflictions. Li is known, among other things, for discovering a plaster made from the skin of dogs to cure boils.


http://www.dragon-gate.com/resources/articles/display.asp?id=113

The Immortal on a Crutch

A popular figure on his own, Li Tieguai is also known as 'Iron Crutch Li' or 'Medicine Man'. His appearance was unkempt with scruffy hair and a dirty face. As one of his legs was crippled, he had to use a crutch to get about, hence the nickname.

However Li was not always like this. He was originally smart with pleasant facial features and a strong body. He studied Taoism and had a young disciple. One day he prepared to set his soul out of his body to travel Huashan Mountain. Li told his disciple that in case his soul did not come back after 7 days, his body should then be cremated.

On the 6th day, the disciple received news that his mother in another village was very ill. He could not wait to go home, and so cremated his master's body before the stipulated day. When Li's soul came back on the 7th day, it could not find his body. He wandered into a nearby forest and found a dead body. Elated to have a 'host' for his soul, Li immediately attached himself to the body. When he came back to life, he realized that the body was of a beggar, ugly and crippled in one leg. His teacher, Lao Zi (purportedly author of 'Tao Te Ching', the 'textbook' of Taoism) then advised Li that outer appearances had no effect on the cultivation of Taoism. Li hence forgave his negligent disciple and cured his mother. He also gave him a pill that would help his becoming an immortal in two centuries time.

Li eventually became an immortal and would often wander on earth to save mortals. A 'documented' example goes as follow - Once, Li approached a night watchman named Chao Tu. Li walked into a fiery furnace and asked the latter to follow him. Chao Tu however was afraid and refused. Li then brought Chao Tu to a river and told him to step on a floating leaf, which he said was a boat that would carry him across the river safely. Chao Tu again refused to do such a thing, afraid that his weight would bring him to the bottom of the river. Li remarked that Chao Tu had yet to leave behind his worldly burdens to become an immortal. He then stepped on the leaf himself and disappeared in the twinkling of an eye.

As his 'forte' was healing people, he is always depicted holding a gourd, said to contain magical medicine which could heal all sorts of illnesses.

[John Gauger]

27. What does that mean, though?

We were ever intended to actually believe the story of his resurrection or not?

[JerseygirlCT]

28. I'm not sure

I think it's somewhere between your 2nd and 3rd choices. That is, I suspect that it was a "real" event, but what that means is up for question. And that our interpretation of it may certainly be flawed. My guess is that it was certainly intended to be symbolic. Whether it needed to be physical death and resurrection as well... I just don't know.

[On the Road]

29. I Suspect the Original Belief

was of a spiritual resurrection. Jesus has said that he would return on the clouds of heaven -- I don't think his original followers thought he would be in a resurrected human body.

[Zebedeo]

30. It was a real event

and this truth remains, despite the intensive effort at revisionist history by some that for some reason feel threatened by it.

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Easter-Journalist-Investigates-Resurrection/dp/0310254752

[uberllama42]

31. I hope this doesn't come across as impertinent

But what is your take on the creation? Do you take Genesis literally? If you read it metaphorically, could you go into detail about how you believe it actually happened?

Thanks for humoring me. I'm sure you've hashed this out a dozen times on this board already, but I don't think I've ever discussed it with you before, and I'm curious. Hope you don't mind my asking.

[Zebedeo]

32. I am an Old Earth Creationist

Thank you for your polite and respectful post.

I believe the history set forth in Genesis is true. The days of the creation prior to the creation of man on the 6th day are days measured from the perspective of the Creator at the time and place of the creation (or as some call it, the Big Bang). From that perspective, only 6 days passed. From our perspective, that 6 days is equivalent to billions of years. This disparity in the speed at which time passes depending on the perspective from which it is measured is due to the fact that time is not a constant.

I think that the Young Earth Creationists have some thought-provoking points, but I am not convinced that they are right. While I keep an open mind, I adhere to an Old Earth Creationist worldview.

While I regard the content of the Book of Genesis as true, that does not mean that every word is literalistically true. That is not how people speak or write. Some of the language is poetic. But the meaning is clear.

[Evoman]

33. Zeb, and I mean this with the utmost respect

it's great to have you back. Sometimes one gets tired with arguing with people who are wishy washy. It's nice to have an ol' fashioned fundamentalist (and thats not meant as a perjorative in your case) back on the board.

[uberllama42]

34. It seems alien to us, at least in the environment of this board

But I see the stats year after year: half of Americans say they are young-earth creationists.

Despite the views that some elements hereabouts would attribute to me, I very much believe that diversity of opinion is a good thing on a discussion board. I'm happy to see him back, too.

[Zebedeo]

37. Thank you.

Without diversity of opinion, a discussion board would be pretty boring, I suppose.

[Zebedeo]

36. Thanks

for your kind words. I do not regard the term "fundamentalist" as insulting, even though in some other contexts on this board, it appears that it is intended to be a pejorative term.

I enjoy participating in discussions on this board. I like to engage in discussion with those whose beliefs are different from mine.

You are a purist on the other side of the fence, but a purist nonetheless.

[uberllama42]

35. Thanks

Kind of a non sequitur, I know, but I was curious. Like I said, I'm sure we've been through this before, but I guess I was too lazy to google it.