irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) (04/21/91)
Now that the celebrations of Easter and Lent are officially over, could someone please answer a question that I hear quite frequently. In the Gospels we are told that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. He had risen. However, many poeple seem to ask, how can Christians assume that He rose and that someone just didn't steal the body? I have always heard the most common answer that the stone was too heavy for the disciples to move, however, in Matthew 27:60, it says that Joseph rolled the stone in front of the tomb after placing Jesus' body in there. So it wouldn't be that hard for others to move it away then. And there is also the suggestion that the guards were standing near the tomb. Obviously, these guards had there life on the line if the body was to be found missing. So who is Mary referring to then when she says in John 20:2--"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" And yes, Jesus appeared to people after His death, but then, so is Elvis. Could anyone please give some logical answers. It does matter, this is what the Christian faith is founded on--that Christ didn't just die, but rose!
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.21.01.37.13.1991.19235@athos.rutgers.edu>, irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: Hi Jennifer, You certainly have asked a very important question - a question whose answer separates Christians from Jews and Moslems. First, the Old Testament scriptures foretell that the Servant or Annointed One (as Jesus is called) would spend three days in death and then arise. Jesus said, "I will tear down the temple and rebuilt it in three days." Thus, we can see that Old Testament prophecies talking about a temple are not talking about wood and stone but about Jesus. Secondly, the Bible says that at least around 2,000 people saw Jesus after he arose. Included in that number are people whose opinions we greatly respect - the disciples, who are noted for their honesty and "level-headedness." Many of the people who saw Jesus refused to accept the fact that He had died and risen. One trane of thought said that his body had been stolen. This is what the "Jewish" religion teaches today. I use "" because it is not the same Judaism that Jesus taught. Another trane of thought said that Jesus has never died. This is what Moslems believe. Thus, the two "logical" explanations for his death and resurrection are totally devoid of faith. They do not include that fact that God can raise Himself from the dead. Yet, Christians believe that God did indeed raise Himself from the dead, and it is this faith in God that has brought us salvation, which other religions can never offer. > However, many poeple seem to ask, how can Christians assume that > He rose and that someone just didn't steal the body? I have always heard > And yes, Jesus appeared to people after His death, but then, so is > Elvis. Could anyone please give some logical answers. It does matter, this > is what the Christian faith is founded on--that Christ didn't just die, but > rose!
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (04/23/91)
irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: > Now that the celebrations of Easter and Lent are officially over, >could someone please answer a question that I hear quite frequently. In >the Gospels we are told that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. He had >risen. However, many poeple seem to ask, how can Christians assume that >... > And yes, Jesus appeared to people after His death, but then, so is >Elvis. Could anyone please give some logical answers. It does matter, this >is what the Christian faith is founded on--that Christ didn't just die, but >rose! The work "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin does in fact give logical answers about this critical point. It explains that the Laws of Creation, which also manifest as the physical laws, or laws of nature, are necessarily perfect, having issued forth from the Perfect GOD. Think about it now: that which is perfect cannot be subject to change, or else it could not have been *perfect* from the beginning! Therefore, we are compelled to accept the conclusion that it was, is, and always shall be IMPOSSIBLE for a PHYSICAL body to ascend into the SPIRITUAL kingdom or realm. Simply impossible, otherwise there is no perfection in the simple clear natural laws of Creation. And to argue that "With God all things are possible" is to distort and misuse this wonderful wisdom, since in the trivial sense many things ARE impossible for God, such as evil, imperfection, etc. And for God to act against His own Will, His own perfect laws, would show an imperfection, i.e., the need for a change or an interruption in the working of these laws. Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus and the truth of His Message. This is the reason that those who had been close to Jesus did not immediately recognize Him. It is also the reason He was able to enter into a locked room. As for the physical body of Jesus, one would have to assume then that it was in fact taken from the tomb, by persons unknown and for reasons unknown, but I expect that in the future this too shall be made clear. I hope these explanation will prove helpful to serious questioners. Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.21.01.37.13.1991.19235@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes:
+ And there is also the suggestion that the guards were standing near
+the tomb. Obviously, these guards had there life on the line if the body was
+to be found missing. So who is Mary referring to then when she says in
Ever read Petronius' account of a Centurian guarding a crucified
criminal and near by a young widow morning the loss of her husband?
(Grave yards were great places for executions). The story goes along
the lines of; guard 'consoles' widow; family of criminal steals body
from cross; guard and widow hang dead husbands body in criminal's
place to prevent the guard from being executed himself.
This would point to the fact that not every guard guarded well.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduEFL0@ns.cc.lehigh.edu (Ed Lamb) (04/23/91)
Jennifer,
You've raised some very good questions. I hope I can be of some
help.
First, about the stone. I do not know if this is the case, but if
the stone were brought down from a higher place, it could have been
moved easily, while being hard to move again.
Second, about stealing the body. This could not have been the case
for a number of reasons. If we say the soldiers took it, we must then
say that later, when the empire tried to crush christianoty, they
conveniently forgot the very thing which would silence Christians,
namely, that Jesus did not rise from the dead. If we say that the
disciples took it, we will have a battle from our psychologists.
Why? Because while you can get people to die for something
they believe in, you cannot get twelve guys to die for a known lie.
Every disciple died for what they claimed to have seen. In contrast,
look at watergate. There a few men, with "everything according to plan"
could not keep up their cover when faced with just a few years of
prison. How do you expect the disciples to give up their lives for a
"known lie?"
Third, in John 20:2, the "they" may refer to the guards. One must
remember that she was in a state of grief, and didn't take in that the
guards would lose their lives if they stole the body.
Fourth, Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, not spread out. And
he was only seen for fourty days. Elvis is never seen by a large (500)
group, and it has been 14 years since he died. Why did people stop
seeing Jesus after that?
Fifth, you are absolutely right when you say that Christianity is
founded on the resurrection. If it didn't happen Christianity is
useless. If it did, it is the only way.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________
Ed Lamb .387 average
Catcher 53 home runs
Philadelphia Phillies 157 runs batted in
National League MVP 67 stolen bases
World Series MVP
________________________________________________________________________
--Hey, I can dream, can't I ??????billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.21.01.37.13.1991.19235@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: > > Now that the celebrations of Easter and Lent are officially over, >could someone please answer a question that I hear quite frequently. In >the Gospels we are told that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. He had >risen. However, many poeple seem to ask, how can Christians assume that >He rose and that someone just didn't steal the body? I have always heard >the most common answer that the stone was too heavy for the disciples to move, >however, in Matthew 27:60, it says that Joseph rolled the stone in front of >the tomb after placing Jesus' body in there. So it wouldn't be that hard >for others to move it away then. Well, that may not be exactly true. From what I have heard, the tombs were constructed so that the stones were rolled DOWN A RAMP to stop in front of the tomb. Moving the stone down and in front of the opening would be easy for one man. Moving it BACK UP the ramp would be very difficult for a few men. In fact, it might require the entire contingent of Roman Soldiers sent to guard the tomb. The key here is GRAVITY. It is important to try to understand the scriptures in light of the cultural implications. The fact that the stone would be rolled down to seal the tomb and have to be rolled up to open the tomb would be obvious to the people of that day and age. Over the centuries we've lost sight of that fact. When I was in Israel (too long ago) something else was explained. Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven. Well in my mind at least, this is of course impossible (without God's intervention of course). Well in the old city of Jerusalem, there are many large internal doors separating different portions of the city. Within these large doors is a smaller door, maybe 2 feet wide by 4 feet tall. This door is called "The Eye of the Needle". For a camel, with packs, etc. to pass through this door is very difficult, but not impossible (it just requires a lot of effort and all day =8^) ). This is what Jesus was talking about. But since we don't live in that cultural setting we interpret it as something else. > And there is also the suggestion that the guards were standing near >the tomb. Obviously, these guards had there life on the line if the body was >to be found missing. So who is Mary referring to then when she says in >John 20:2--"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where >they have put him!" One explanation is that Mary beleived that the Roman Soldiers and/or the Temple Guards at the request of the Sanhedron had moved the body to prevent the disciples from stealing it later and claiming that Christ had risen. They would have moved it to a location known only to them. Then when the disciples would later claim that "He is risen", the body would be produced and the "fraud" exposed. > And yes, Jesus appeared to people after His death, but then, so is >Elvis. Could anyone please give some logical answers. It does matter, this >is what the Christian faith is founded on--that Christ didn't just die, but >rose! Who has been tortured unto death claiming that Elvis is alive??? 10 of the 11 apostles (remember Judas hung himself) died violent deaths because they preached the Gospel. If they had made it all up, don't you think they would have changed their story when their life was on the line? You may give your life for a cause you truely believe in, but will you lay down your life for something you know to be a lie??? And even if YOU would, what are the chances that 10 coconspiritors would??? Peace in Christ Bill Gripp [It is probably worth dealing with these details if people are concerned that there's some serious hole in the Biblical description that casts doubt on its believability. However I think the reason the original disciples believed in the resurrection was not things like how difficult it would have been to roll the stone away, how the graveclothes were laid out, etc, but the fact that they thought they had encounted the resurrected Jesus. Indeed in John's version of the story, Mary seems to have thought that the empty tomb indicated that someone had taken the body away. It wasn't until she met the risen Lord that she thought otherwise. Certainly Paul's account of the tradition that was handed on to him (I Cor 15) -- which I believe is our earliest evidence -- emphasizes the appearances of Jesus, not the empty tomb. (However I do agree that this account presupposes that the tomb was empty.) Similarly with people trying to evaluate the evidence now. I think the work of Christian apologists [apologetics is the branch of theology that concentrates on evaluating the evidence for Christianity] is useful, in defending the credibility of the NT accounts and pointing out the difficulties with various proposed alternative explanations. I'm not an expert in the appearances of Elvis, but I suspect one can find objective reasons for not regarding evidence for his survival to be of the same caliber as the NT. However there have been enough wierd events in human history reported by apparently competent witnesses that I think it's going to be very hard if not impossible to show rationally that just this one account of miraculous events and no other is believable. In the end I think people become Christians because the NT accounts in some way come alive in their own lives. That is, Jesus' teachings, life and death speak to them in a way that makes them seem like revelations from God. (Classically, Protestant theologians have expressed this by saying that a true understanding of Scripture happens only through the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit.) Thus when someone has doubts about the truth of Scripture, I think it's useful to try to deal with those doubts, but I don't think one should expect to be able to provide any completely conclusive proof. In addition to rational arguments, Christians had better be able to show people in our lives and in the Church a kind of love that they do not see elsewhere, which leads people to the inescapable conclusion that God is revealing himself here. If we can't do this, we are -- as Paul says -- noisy gongs or clanging cymbals. Frankly, that's what worries me about this forum. I'm worried about what people would think about the Church from reading this group. --clh]
pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com (Pete Ashdown) (04/25/91)
irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: > And yes, Jesus appeared to people after His death, but then, so is >Elvis. Could anyone please give some logical answers. It does matter, this >is what the Christian faith is founded on--that Christ didn't just die, but >rose! Is Christianity _really_ founded upon the resurrection of Christ? Would the values Christ taught us be any less important if the entire story of his existence was fabricated by the apostles? I don't think so. I'm afraid that too many people base their Christianity solely upon the existence of miracles. I think they're missing the point entirely. -- / "Uhh" - Jon Bon Jovi \ THISSPACEHASBEENRENTEDTHISS \\ / AMGIA!! The computer for the mind. \X v// PAC SMiles! from Ilana EHA |XV [FREE CD'S! SEND ME MONEY!] X\/ SBEENRENTEDTHISPACEHASBEENR Pete Ashdown pashdown@javelin.sim.es.com ...uunet!javelin.sim.es.com!pashdown [One could create a religion based on some sort of values coming from Jesus, without having the resurrection. If you want to do so, that's up to you. (I think you'll have to ignore certain things Jesus said in order to do so, by the way.) I guess I'm not interested in engaging in arguments as to whether such a religion could legimately call itself Christian or not. It would certainly not be the religion described in the NT or practiced by the Church. The story of the crucifixion and resurrection so dominates the Gospels that scholars have referred to them as passion stories with extended prologs. Paul says "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." (I Cor 15:19) Paul's understanding of Christianity is that the basic Christian experience involved vicarious participation in Christ's death and resurrection. Some people believe Paul has created a mystery religion. They have proposed a religion somehow based on Jesus' teachings without any of this resurrection stuff. Again, if you want to do that, go ahead. But every one of the NT authors sees Jesus' death and resurrection as key. You're going to be constructing a religion that is different than Christianity as it currently exists, and you're going to have to do a major rewrite of the documents you would have to use as sources for Jesus' words. --clh]
ejprosser@ucdavis.edu (Eric J. Prosser) (04/25/91)
I usually just read your comments in this group and like to read about the different views because it causes me to did deeper into scripture to find answers; I couldn't pass this one up. Some replys have been that Jesus' body could have been taken from the tomb or he just didn't die. Let me propose some things for you to think about: We have these guys who are following Jesus. They are pretty close to Him. They totally support Jesus and are supporting His teachings. When it comes time for Jesus to be arrested and taken away, all these guys deny that they were with Him or that they supported Him (I suppose they were afraid they might be dragged away too). Now, Jesus is crucified, put in a tomb that is sealed, Roman guards are put on the post because they feared His disciples might take His body and say He rose. The guards who were on duty were paid to say His disciples took the body. (the thought of Jesus never died is stupid. One of the guards stuck a knife in Him and blood and water--I'm not an expert hear--came out. From what I've heard from medical doctors is that this means Jesus was as dead as dead could be) Anyway, this is what took place. Now, to some thoughts...... If Jesus' body were taken and people were saying His disciples took it, for fear of their life, wouldn't they have brought the body out of hiding to save their lives? And if some other people took the body wouldn't they have brought it out of hiding to prove He didn't rise? Jesus appeared to both beleivers and non-believers alike. They all saw Him and couldn't deny that fact. And who was the disciple Jesus walked up to and said put your finger in the scar and touch me? This disciple was doubting this whole thing and this must have made quite an impression on this him. Ok, what about this.......Today, as far as I know, there has been no proof that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. It seems to me that everything else (eg, documents, eye-witness, etc.) points to this being true. Elvis,....Well, you tell me. At any given point in time when a person "sees" Elvis they are alone or with a "witness." Jesus didn't just appear to one or two people at a time, He appeared to hundreds! This seems to me to make it more credible. As a last note, READ your Bible! Study the Hebrew and Greek words and what they really mean in their context. Don't stop there, look into they culture of burial and what they did to prepare a body. Read the manuscripts found, you'll find lots of support here. If you really do your homework well, you'll get a better picture than I can portray or anyone else, and you shouldn't take anything that any man says as fact! You need to do the homework first before you can really agree or disagree with anyone who has also done their homework. Me personally, I have dug into this subject off and on for the past year. I'm still learning, so don't take my words as fact. They are just some conclusions that I am beginning to arrive at. Jesus is a totally awesome God! Following Him is not easy! But I will follow Him till the day I die! Eric Jon Prosser ejprosser@ucdavis.edu I&P Computing Services (916) 752-2906 University of California, Davis
jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Johann) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.13.00.1991.2514@athos.rutgers.edu>, sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: > The work "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin does in > fact give logical answers about this critical point. > > It explains that the Laws of Creation, which also manifest as the physical > laws, or laws of nature, are necessarily perfect, having issued forth from > the Perfect GOD. Your concept concerning the laws of nature is quite interesting. I will concede that the laws of nature were created by God. > Think about it now: that which is perfect cannot be subject to change, or > else it could not have been *perfect* from the beginning! > Therefore, we are compelled to accept the conclusion that it was, is, and > always shall be IMPOSSIBLE for a PHYSICAL body to ascend into the SPIRITUAL > kingdom or realm. Simply impossible, otherwise there is no perfection in the > simple clear natural laws of Creation. Interesting... Why, however, is it not possible for God to break his own rules? I cannot sit here and say that because God has created something he has no right to alter it as he sees fit. Who says that it is impossible for a a physical body to enter into heaven? God created heaven, God created the body and God created the rules governing both. God can do whatever he wants. There have been stories of people entering heaven without passing through death. (See Elijah (II Kings 2:11) and Enoch (Genesis 5:24)) > And to argue that "With God all things are possible" is to distort and > misuse this wonderful wisdom, since in the trivial sense many things ARE > impossible for God, such as evil, imperfection, etc. And for God to act > against His own Will, His own perfect laws, would show an imperfection, i.e., > the need for a change or an interruption in the working of these laws. Why is this? I usually avoid strong philosophical discussions, but I see this as being very important. By definition, we know that God is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants. He has free will. God says that he will not change his will, but that does not imply that he doesn't have the right to do so if he so desired. I think that saying "With God all things are possible" is the most relevant thing that could be said in this situation. If God (for whatever reason) chose to break one of the laws he had created, how could we call this imperfection? To a Christian, our definition of perfection IS God. Whatever God does is inherently perfect. It is not our place to bring God's acts into question and say, if God did so and so we would have to say he was imperfect. For example, look at the case of Job. By HUMAN standards, heaping punishments on Job even though he was a righteous man in order to prove to Satan that he would not curse God is a very unfair thing to do. HOWEVER, as God so strongly points out, who are we to question his actions? He cannot be measured by human standards. (See Job 38-end) Whatever God wants to do, he can do. The fact that we cannot understand the action is irrelevant. "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." (I Corinthians 1:19) > Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was > NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, > or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested > the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given > to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they > would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus > and the truth of His Message. I disagree. Our Lord specifically says after his appearance, "Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? See me hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39 RSV) The same passage claims that the savior took a piece of fish and ate it in front of the disciples. Yet, Revelation 7:16 clearly states that in our heavenly forms we "shall hunger no more". How do you reconcile the two? > This is the reason that those who had been close to Jesus did not immediately > recognize Him. It is also the reason He was able to enter into a locked room. > As for the physical body of Jesus, one would have to assume then that it was > in fact taken from the tomb, by persons unknown and for reasons unknown, but > I expect that in the future this too shall be made clear. I expect that at the rapture, everything will be made clear. Looking forward to that day... :-) > I hope these explanation will prove helpful to serious questioners. > Mark Sandrock -Jon Anderson
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/25/91)
In article <Apr.21.01.37.13.1991.19235@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: > > Now that the celebrations of Easter and Lent are officially over, >could someone please answer a question that I hear quite frequently. In >the Gospels we are told that Jesus' body was missing from the tomb. He had >risen. However, many poeple seem to ask, how can Christians assume that >He rose and that someone just didn't steal the body? I have always heard >the most common answer that the stone was too heavy for the disciples to move, >however, in Matthew 27:60, it says that Joseph rolled the stone in front of >the tomb after placing Jesus' body in there. So it wouldn't be that hard >for others to move it away then. Even if the stone was extremely heavy, Jesus had a number of disciples. If men could put the stone in place, men could move it. > And there is also the suggestion that the guards were standing near >the tomb. Obviously, these guards had there life on the line if the body was >to be found missing. So who is Mary referring to then when she says in >John 20:2--"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where >they have put him!" Mary still did not believe that Jesus had risen, she only knew that the body was missing. Her "logical" conclusion was that someone had taken the body. She didn't know who, she just knew it was gone! Later in the same chapter, Jesus appeared to Mary and she understood. > And yes, Jesus appeared to people after His death, but then, so is >Elvis. Could anyone please give some logical answers. It does matter, this >is what the Christian faith is founded on--that Christ didn't just die, but >rose! I can't show you the empty grave Jennifer even if I could it wouldn't prove anything. You already accept that the grave was empty. I won't tell you that the disciples *couldn't* have stolen the body. I can't prove that. I can ask you a question. Why would they? "Well, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah!" The Gospel accounts have the eleven running for their lives! By the accounts, when ever Jesus talked about his death and resurection they didn't understand what he was talking about! When Jesus asked them "Who do you say that I am?" Peter said that he was the Messiah, and Jesus treated his statement as remarkable. (Apparantly the others weren't so foresightful.) And yet, even Peter denied knowing Jesus. Can you see this bunch of guys getting together *the day after the crucifixion* and saying "Hey! I know, we'll steal the body, and say he rose from the dead!" When Jesus appeared to them they were in hiding! Okay, so let's assume that the whole thing was a practical joke. The disciples stole the body, then the Gospel writers went back and put words in Jesus' mouth predicting that he would rise again after three days. Wouldn't they have been a little more straight-forward? Wouldn't they have portrayed the disciples just a little better? (Like as wise saints, rather than bickering fisherman who had to have everything explained to them.) Indeed, while one Gospel records two of the disciples asking for the choice spots in Heaven, another one has their mother asking on their behalf. (Apparantly an attempt to portray these disciples in a little better light.) You see, I just can't make the conspiracy theory work. Mind you, I still haven't proved that Jesus rose from the dead. Instead, a snatch from an old hymn. You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart. None of us on this list will be able to *prove* to you that Jesus rose from the dead, or that the body was stolen. You'll have to find that *proof* for yourself. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
uriel@oak.circa.ufl.edu (Scott Whitmore) (04/25/91)
[In response to a question about the credibility of Jesus' resurrection and resurrection appearances, Mark Sandrock writes >The work "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin does in >fact give logical answers about this critical point. [stuff zapped] >Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was >NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, >or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested >the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given >to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they >would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus >and the truth of His Message. --clh] I hate to seem like I'm picking on you, but I propose this answer. C.S. Lewis offers this explanation (I can't remember which book right now) for Christ's Resurrection. He says that Christ does indeed assume his body on Sunday morning, but that he assumes it in glory -- that is, the body of Jesus becomes part of the Son and part of God and is glorified therein. This is very meaningful, because it counters the Gnostic argument (which has been around for millenia and is preserved in the Grail Message as elsewhere) that the Spirit goes on to higher planes of existence while Gross Matter, which is 'less', stays behind; matter is portrayed as being somehow less *good* than spirit. Gnosticism denies physical resurrection. Yet Paul says, "For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins." (I Cor 15:16-17, RSV) > >This is the reason that those who had been close to Jesus did not immediately >recognize Him. It is also the reason He was able to enter into a locked room. > In other words, the disciples were lied to by God when they touched his wounds and watched him eat fish? And as for the locked room, apparently he was no longer BOUND to the laws of physics, even though physical-ness was part of him. >As for the physical body of Jesus, one would have to assume then that it was >in fact taken from the tomb, by persons unknown and for reasons unknown, but >I expect that in the future this too shall be made clear. Yes, His return in glory (with His body) may help to clear that up. :) >I hope these explanation will prove helpful to serious questioners. > >Mark Sandrock How about to silly questioners? Scott Whitmore Internet: uriel@maple.circa.ufl.edu 24-510 Tolbert Hall or uriel@maple.decnet%pine.circa.ufl.edu Gainesville, FL 32612 (USA) Friendly Neighborhood Standard Disclaimer "The Devil...the prowde spirit...cannot bear to be mocked." --Thomas More (?)
MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu (04/25/91)
Just a slightly related question. About all of this "crucified and raised from the dead" discussion... Why is it that John's rendition says that his side was pierced, but none of the others do? Also, the side-piercing becomes a plot element later, with Thomas, toward the end of the rendition. Why was this left out in the others (or perhaps written into John's for the effect)? M.Schulte [How would we at this point of time answer such a question? I think in the last few decades scholars have tended to place more value in John. At one point many believed that he had no independent historical tradition, but was based on the Synoptics with a lot of elaboration. I think most now believe that John had some independent sources of information. Thus there's nothing impossible about him knowing details that the others didn't. Of course whether any of these sources are to be believed or the whole resurrection thing is a legend is an issue that scholarship alone doesn't answer. --clh]
krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) (04/25/91)
This is a very complicated question. The best IMHO discussion of this is given by a one-time college student who decided to write a paper for a composition class which would disprove the bible. After gathering evidence, he became convinced and became born again. His name is Josh McDowell and the book is _Evidence Which Demands A Verdict_. Your question actually implies several other smaller questions and several evidencial directions. Some of those are: 1) Jesus himself claimed that he would rise from the dead 2) Ignatious, who later became Bishop of Antioch, lived from about 50AD to 115AD, wrote of Jesus factual resurection 3) As did Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) 4) Perhaps the best (agreed upon as not pro-christian) was Josephus a Jewish (not christian) historian in the employ of Rome (end of 1st century AD) 5) Many other christian and non-christian historians Please, if you have questions about this subject, read _Evidence_, or works by Gleason Archer (not a christian apologist). The first question IMHO is, "Is there a God?" and the second is "If there is, what is our responsibility to Him?" -- Be Excellent To Each Other [I'm not sure what the reference to Josephus is about. The only comment he made that might be taken to support Christianity is generally considered to be a later modification of his text. Nor do I know of any other non-Christian writer that directly confirms the resurrection, except in the sense of saying that Christians believed in it. --clh]
3at@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Raphael Martelles) (04/29/91)
>> Think about it now: that which is perfect cannot be subject to change, or >> else it could not have been *perfect* from the beginning! Huh? As I sit here, I feel compelled to introduce logic into this... :-) First, let me start out by saying that God Is. Any questions? No? Good. Second, if God Is, and God Is All that Is (or is) then God Is Perfect. Third, God Is Love. So--(seeing as how none of my arguments above relate :-) here I go: If X is perfect, does that imply anything not X is not perfect? Or can Y be perfect, too? God is dynamically perfect. He Is all, and He created all. He loves His creation, and even when we don't see this (Job, Israel getting bashed upon) His love is still present in everything. How morally GROSS Israel would have become if the Lord had not reproved them! So, even though the world would call Israel's rape/enslavement evil, the Lord was actually giving them the highest good there was! Paradox, huh? But who claims to understand our Father? Who knows His ways? All I'm aware of is His love... So, now that I've hit soapbox #1, let's get back on track... If a creation of God is perfect, and it grows a new appendage, does that mean it was incomplete before? NO! It means it has a new appendage! If Christ, as a perfect man, learns Calculus (assuming He as the son of man didn't know it,) does that mean He was incomplete and imperfect before? If X is perfect, and X turns into Y, does that mean that Y is not perfect? No. Of course, it might. But who really knows, huh? GOD DOES!!! So, why should we even bother to worry about it? If my Father in heaven knows, the Almighty God of All who has loved me enough to call me His friend, if He knows, why should I worry? I'm perfect in Christ, and so are you, and let's go out and spread the word, huh? What is perfection? God! How do we become perfect? We don't. It is Christ in us that is perfect. He shed His blood and gave His life so we might be clean. Amen? Perfect might be able to change. Then again, it might not. Who cares whether we sit in a grave or go straight to heaven? Who cares if we aren't saved? I *know* that I am. And even if I DO somehow end up in hell, what better place to lead a prayer meeting? Think about the MISSION POSSIBILITIES!!!! :-) If God is your friend and Father, the rest will fall into place. That's why I don't worry--all I do is for the love of Jesus my Savior, Jesus my friend. Even when I sin, I know that He still loves me, that it was all taken care of. C'mon, guys--there's so much argument on this net. Yuk! All I can realy ask is that you make sure that it isn't >From pride, but rather from an interest in the furthering of your neighbor's relationship with our Lord. Of course, I always figured that a spiritual path MUST be walked alone with Christ, and so I just prayed. Try it.... Love in Christ, the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Holy One, the King of Kings, the Messiah, the Morning Star, but (the one that really makes me cry) most importantly, MY FRIEND, Raph. -- Raphael Dominic Martelles <>< 3at@sage.cc.purdue.edu IX0YE "Christianity isn't a crutch, it's a stretcher. You can't even hobble into heaven!"
conan@ragu.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (04/29/91)
Our Fearless Moderator Writes: >In addition to rational arguments, Christians had better be able to >show people in our lives and in the Church a kind of love that they do >not see elsewhere, which leads people to the inescapable conclusion >that God is revealing himself here. If we can't do this, we are -- as >Paul says -- noisy gongs or clanging cymbals. Frankly, that's what >worries me about this forum. I'm worried about what people would >think about the Church from reading this group. Perhaps this newsgroup should come with a disclaimer: "All of the comments found here are theological in nature and have nothing to do with Christianity." :-) Yours, humorously, in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.22.26.02.1991.8472@athos.rutgers.edu> billg@bony1.bony.com (Bill Gripp) writes: >In article <Apr.21.01.37.13.1991.19235@athos.rutgers.edu> irani@brahms.udel.edu (Jennifer Irani) writes: >When I was in Israel (too long ago) something else was explained. Jesus >said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle >than for a rich man to go to heaven. Well in my mind at least, this is >of course impossible (without God's intervention of course). Well in >the old city of Jerusalem, there are many large internal doors >separating different portions of the city. Within these large doors is >a smaller door, maybe 2 feet wide by 4 feet tall. This door is called >"The Eye of the Needle". For a camel, with packs, etc. to pass through >this door is very difficult, but not impossible (it just requires a lot >of effort and all day =8^) ). This is what Jesus was talking about. >But since we don't live in that cultural setting we interpret it as >something else. One day, I found myself in the pulpit, and I was talking about finding loopholes in Bible verses. As I discussed this one. It struck me that I had read that in order to get the camel through the "eye of the needle", it was necessary to unload it, and get it down on its knees. I then realized that the same procedure could be used to get a rich man into heaven. First, unload him (go and sell everything you have and give it to the poor), and then get him down on his knees. It is of course much easier to get a camel to part with its load then it is to get a rich man to part with his. So it's easier to get a camel through the eye of the needle then it is to get a rich man into heaven. It appears to me that the "eye of the needle" is not a loophole, but lends greater understanding to this verse. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.23.24.39.1991.11027@athos.rutgers.edu> MVS104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: >Just a slightly related question. >About all of this "crucified and raised from the dead" discussion... >Why is it that John's rendition says that his side was pierced, but none of >the others do? Also, the side-piercing becomes a plot element later, with >Thomas, toward the end of the rendition. Why was this left out in the others >(or perhaps written into John's for the effect)? Well, let's say that the different Gospel writers had different priorities. No one of the Gospels gives a complete account of Jesus' life. For instance, we're told that Judas carried the poor box, and he stole from it, (that's why he objected to wasting the ointment on Jesus when it could have been sold and the money given to the poor), and yet I don't remember any Gospel accounts of Jesus and the Disciples collecting money for the poor, or giving money to the poor for that matter. Matthew tells of the birth of Jesus, but Mark starts out with John the Baptist. Matthew talks about wise men, Mark talks about shepherds. John neglects to tell the history of Jesus birth, but instead explains the reason. Well? Which one has the story right? Each Gospel writer seeks to tell us something different about Jesus. They don't have enough room to describe his entire life in detail, (As John says)... John 21:25 Now, there are many other things that Jesus did. If they were all were written down one by one, I suppose that the whole world could not hold the books that would be written. ... so, each Gospel author tells us those things they knew about that *they* considered important to the Gospel they were writing. All of them considered Jesus arrest, crucifixion, death and resurrection important, but they record different details about them. If you were to detail all the activities of a group of say... 20 people over the course of 3 days, how many pages do you think it might take? Wouldn't you edit your account down to size by just noting those activities that you felt were most significant, (based upon your ideas of significance)? Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (04/29/91)
Did Christ rise from the dead? I believe he did. Did he have to? I believe so. If Christ did not rise from the dead, then the rest of the Gospels would have simply been a a set of chronologies of "a great human teacher" But Christians have from day one said that Christ was the Son of God. Does that "prove" anything? No. Basically the non-Christian is confronted with either becoming a Christian, or dismissing the Christians as being a bunch of crazies. I will say that given the nature of the Passion, the human spirit does not want to let the story end there. But that is perhaps the point. If the Gospels ended with Christ dieing on the cross, where would the "Good News" be? The Good News is that Christ rose from the dead. It is the ultimate happy ending. It breaks all the bonds of human cynicism and despair. We are saved. Lord, by your Cross and Resurrection, You have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world. dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.13.00.1991.2514@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >Think about it now: that which is perfect cannot be subject to change, or >else it could not have been *perfect* from the beginning! Why? Why does a change mean that something perfect either is closer to perfection or farther from it? It is now something different, and it can be perfect both as what it was, and as what it is now. If I took a perfect stool, and added a back to it to make it a perfect chair, does that deny that it was a perfect stool to begin with? >And to argue that "With God all things are possible" is to distort and >misuse this wonderful wisdom, since in the trivial sense many things ARE >impossible for God, such as evil, imperfection, etc. And for God to act >against His own Will, His own perfect laws, would show an imperfection, i.e., >the need for a change or an interruption in the working of these laws. Why? God created imperfect human beings, (right?) And who is to say we know all of the laws of creation, (sometimes labled laws of physics or laws of nature), scientists have not ceased to explore these laws. Indeed, the more we learn, the more questions we have. >Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was >NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, >or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested >the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given >to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they >would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus >and the truth of His Message. > >This is the reason that those who had been close to Jesus did not immediately >recognize Him. It is also the reason He was able to enter into a locked room. It would seem logical to me that a creator capable of creating the cosmos should be able to re-animate human flesh. Before Jesus death, he demonstrated the ability to walk on water, and Peter too demonstated this ability, so violation of the "laws of physics" does not appear to require that the physical body no longer lives. Is the act of walking though walls more difficult than walking on water? Both require something outside the laws of physics we know. As for not recognizing Jesus; These people were in a state of shock, they had seen the man die! Quite often, when I run into someone I know in a different context, I don't recognize them at first. (Since I don't expect to see them.) For instance, seeing a co-worker in a store may leave me at a loss for a time. These people had seen Jesus die, probably they didn't expect to meet him on the street. Perhaps he took on a different appearance, we have a occurance of him being transfigured before his death as well. >As for the physical body of Jesus, one would have to assume then that it was >in fact taken from the tomb, by persons unknown and for reasons unknown, but >I expect that in the future this too shall be made clear. Why does one *have* to assume this? You are willing to accept the miracle of Christ's resurrection, but *only* if it was not bodily!? The workings of souls and spirits have yet to be explained by "physical laws". Why do you accept one apparant lack in "physical laws", but outright reject another? >I hope these explanation will prove helpful to serious questioners. Perhaps to some. I assume you were a serious questioner, and that these explanations proved helpful to you. They have not proven helpful to me. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (04/29/91)
uriel@oak.circa.ufl.edu (Scott Whitmore) writes: >... This [concept from C.S. Lewis] is very meaningful, because it counters >the Gnostic argument ... that the Spirit goes on >to higher planes of existence while Gross Matter, which is 'less', >stays behind; matter is portrayed as being somehow less *good* than >spirit. Gnosticism denies physical resurrection. Yet Paul says, "For >if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If >Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in >your sins." (I Cor 15:16-17, RSV) Yes, well let's read on a little further, shall we? So also with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown in corruption rises in incorruption; what is sown in dishonor rises in glory; what is sown in weakness rises in power; what is sown a natural body rises a spiritual body. (I Cor 15:42-44) And a little further we find: Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can obtain no part in the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption have any part in incorruption. (I Cor 15:50) And a few more... ... even though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. ... For the things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal. (II Cor 4:16,18) Please note, not my words, but Paul's. To me it could not be more clear, but then we can't find what we aren't looking for... >> >>This is the reason that those who had been close to Jesus did not immediately >>recognize Him. It is also the reason He was able to enter into a locked room. >> >In other words, the disciples were lied to by God when they touched his >wounds and watched him eat fish? And as for the locked room, apparently he >was no longer BOUND to the laws of physics, even though physical-ness was >part of him. Not at all. It WAS His body, but His non-physical body (or soul). It was given to His Disciples to be able to see and feel this non-physical body. "And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight." (Luke 24:31) Common sense should tell us that Jesus was no longer BOUND to the physical laws simply because He was no longer BOUND to His physical body! Why is this so very hard to accept? It demonstrates the immutability of the laws of nature, which are ultimately derived from the perfect Will of God! Let's give God the honor of perfection, and see where it leads us! Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece) (05/02/91)
In response to one of the postings on this topic you said: >[One could create a religion based on some sort of values coming from >Jesus, without having the resurrection. If you want to do so, that's >up to you. (I think you'll have to ignore certain things Jesus said >in order to do so, by the way.) I guess I'm not interested in >engaging in arguments as to whether such a religion could legimately >call itself Christian or not. It would certainly not be the religion >described in the NT or practiced by the Church. > >The story of the crucifixion and resurrection so dominates the Gospels >that scholars have referred to them as passion stories with extended >prologs. Since I haven't seen anyone else take up this point, I have to object to your use of the term "passion stories" to include "the story of the crucifixion *and* resurrection". Somebody - I thought it was you, but could be wrong - made this distinction here not long ago in discussing why the musical Godspell lacks any explicit resurrection scenes (because it is basically a setting of the passion). One of the interesting things about the passion narratives in the gospels is that they are very similar to each other - much more similar than most of the rest of the material (it's the place where John is most similar to the synoptics, for example). This similarity is usually taken to mean that it was one of the earliest "codified" traditions of the church. The resurrection narratives, on the other hand, are all over the map (as the discussion on this topic demonstrates). This is especially true if you agree with many NT scholars that Mark originally lacked resurrection material altogether (ie, that it ended after 16:8). It happens that I agree with you that the resurrection is at the heart of the faith (and it is certainly at the heart of Mark's gospel, whether or not actually described). It wouldn't bother me, however, to discover that the earliest resurrection experiences were of the Pauline variety, rather than the "touch my wounds, watch me eat this fish" variety. It accords with my understanding of human nature that the stories about these experiences (which a sceptic could easily attack as "subjective") would tend, over time, to be objectified into the form in which we find them in the gospels: in other words, that the gospel accounts represent later traditions. On this model, the apostles' experiences of the risen Christ were not so different from the those available to Christians today. [I was objecting to someone who wanted to take Jesus' "message" without Christian beliefs in his person. Even if you are right that the passion account is more primitive than the appearances (and it's too late at night for me to give that question the attention it deserves, though I'm inclined to think that some of the formula in Paul are probably earlier than the gospels, and they do involve the resurrection), it seems clear that a Christianity for which Christ's death is central is one that believes not just in the golden rule, but that Christ died for us. That is already enough to show that there was never a Christianity that believed in Christ's message as something apart from his person. I also find it hard to believe that the passion would be central to Christians unless they also believed in the resurrection. --clh]
daly@uunet.uu.net (Kathy Daly) (05/02/91)
Too bad the angels didn't leave the stone in place over the entrance to the tomb. It would have been much more dramatic if the women had come to annoint His body, asked the guards to roll the stone away, and they all look in to find nothing! If it were possible for the risen Jesus to enter a locked room, then He also could have escaped a closed tomb. Why, then, was the stone rolled away . . . ? -- Kathy E.F.Daly ----- "A bad .signature is better than no .signature at all" (technically) Camex,Inc. pays me, but I work for DuPont Design Technologies . . and neither is liable nor responsible for anything I say or do here. ## daly%ddtisvr@uunet.uu.net ## daly@ddtisvr.ddtg.com ## (408)970-4263 ##
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (05/03/91)
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Why? Why does a change mean that something perfect either is closer to >perfection or farther from it? It is now something different, and it can >be perfect both as what it was, and as what it is now. If I took a >perfect stool, and added a back to it to make it a perfect chair, does >that deny that it was a perfect stool to begin with? This does not seem at all logically equivalent to the statements I am making. The fact remains that a *perfect* GOD could never change. This has nothing at all to do with stools or chairs. And neither could His perfect laws be changed or interrupted. What statement would this being making about the perfection of said laws? We don't understand perfection, but we need to learn to understand it, in order to understand our God. And it IS possible to do so. >Why? God created imperfect human beings, (right?) And who is to say we >know all of the laws of creation, (sometimes labled laws of physics or >laws of nature), scientists have not ceased to explore these laws. >Indeed, the more we learn, the more questions we have. God did not create imperfect human beings!!! We have free will and are capable of DEVELOPING ourselves to perfection, as is willed by God. The fact that human beings can and do CHOOSE imperfectly does not mean that we were CREATED imperfectly, only that we are CAPABLE of choosing imperfectly. We are ALSO capable of choosing to follow God's Will, which will lead us to develop towards perfection. How could it be otherwise in Creation? >It would seem logical to me that a creator capable of creating the >cosmos should be able to re-animate human flesh. Before Jesus death, he >demonstrated the ability to walk on water, and Peter too demonstated >this ability, so violation of the "laws of physics" does not appear to >require that the physical body no longer lives. The same natural laws which sufficed to bring Creation into existence naturally also suffice to maintain it. I would say that any "miracle" that would require violating the natural laws is impossible and never really took place. On the other hand, many more things are possible according to the natural laws than what we have been hitherto aware of. The raising of Lazarus "from the dead" for instance, was possible as the soul of Lazarus had not yet severed its connection with the physical body, i.e., the so-called silver cord often spoken of in this regard. The Divine power available to Jesus was required in the case of Lazarus, but this happening was in accordance with the natural laws of Creation. As far as "walking on water", I have to say that I do not know the answer at this time as to whether or not it happened, but I do know that if it did take place that there must be an explanation which accords with the natural laws -- as in every happening! >Is the act of walking though walls more difficult than walking on water? >Both require something outside the laws of physics we know. As for not >recognizing Jesus; These people were in a state of shock, they had seen >the man die! Quite often, when I run into someone I know in a different >context, I don't recognize them at first. (Since I don't expect to see >them.) For instance, seeing a co-worker in a store may leave me at a >loss for a time. These people had seen Jesus die, probably they didn't >expect to meet him on the street. Perhaps he took on a different >appearance, we have a occurance of him being transfigured before his >death as well. Yes, I would say that it is impossible, according to the natural laws, for a physical body to pass through a wall. In the case of walking on water, I am not so sure. It does happen that human beings sometimes have help from animistic beings, which may seem "miraculous" to those unaware of such help. In the same way I believe it was possible for Jesus to command the wind and the sea, since these phenomena are also influenced by "invisible" animistic beings, who work in the Will of God. >>As for the physical body of Jesus, one would have to assume then that it was >>in fact taken from the tomb, by persons unknown and for reasons unknown, but >>I expect that in the future this too shall be made clear. >Why does one *have* to assume this? You are willing to accept the >miracle of Christ's resurrection, but *only* if it was not bodily!? The >workings of souls and spirits have yet to be explained by "physical >laws". Why do you accept one apparant lack in "physical laws", but >outright reject another? "Souls and spirits" are subject to the laws governing THEIR respective realms. They are NON-physical forms and therefore would NOT be subject to physical laws. This is entirely logical and consistent. What I reject is any interpretation which implies an imperfection in God, His Holy Will, and His perfect laws in Creation. Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (05/03/91)
In article <Apr.23.03.13.00.1991.2514@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: > >And to argue that "With God all things are possible" is to distort and >misuse this wonderful wisdom, since in the trivial sense many things ARE >impossible for God, such as evil, imperfection, etc. And for God to act >against His own Will, His own perfect laws, would show an imperfection, i.e., >the need for a change or an interruption in the working of these laws. > >Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was >NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, >or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested >the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given >to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they >would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus >and the truth of His Message. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul sets forth the Gospel that he was preaching to others in very clear and plain terms. This is also the Gospel that Paul received, namely "..how that Christ died for our sins...And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day..." When Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was being transported to Rome for his execution, he wrote these words: "For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh and I believe He is so now...And thus was He, with flesh, received up in their sight unto Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, accompanied by glory and power." The conclusion of the Apostle's Creed (the Old Roman Creed) affirms the "resurrection of the flesh" (sarkos anastasin) and the "life evelasting." And what is a resurrection if that which dies is not also that which is raised up? In John 2:18-22, we find Jesus has just thrown the moneychangers out of the temple. The Jews have said to him, "'What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?' In answer Jesus said to them, 'Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'" In verse 21 we read, "But he was talking about the temple of his body." Verse 22 reads, "When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and the believed the Scripture and the saying Jesus said." Please notice that Jesus Himself said that it would be His body, the physical body, that He would raise up again. There is nothing in that passage that causes anyone to believe otherwise. And the disciples understood this. When Jesus appeared to the disciples, one time He ate with them. Can a spirit eat? Another time Jesus is specific in saying that He is eating to prove to them that He is physical for a spirit cannot eat. Then Jesus appears before the disciples (Luke 24:39) and comforts them saying, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch me and see, for spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Jesus said it in the strongest way He could; He was risen from the dead. He presented physical proof -- His human body. Paul, in the 1 Cor. 15 passage that I referred to previously, makes this comment (this is verse 14 from the Amplified): "If Christ has not risen, then our preaching is in vain (amounts to nothing) and your faith is devoid of truth and is fruitless -- without efffect, imaginary and unfounded." Did Paul really believe that Jesus had been resurrected bodily; decide for yourself based upon what he wrote to Timothy: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the *man* Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV). The Bible clearly states that Jesus was resurrected bodily from the dead. It was not some disembodied spirit or soul that wandered about. The body was not found in the tomb because Jesus rose from the dead as He said that He would. The body of Jesus Christ came alive again and walked the face of the earth for another 40 days before ascending into heaven. This is the truth of Scripture and is the assurance to us that there will also be a resurrection for us at the return of our Blessed Hope. There is no reincarnation, only resurrection. En Agape tou Iesou, Gene Gross
thomas@ns.pacbell.com (05/05/91)
It seems really odd to me that people are so commonly comparing Jesus and Elvis Presley. Does this really seem appropriate to other people? What does the use of this comparison mean to our society and religion? It seems strange to me. I liked the story about the Camel fitting through the eye of the needle. Thanks for posting the info. [The comparison is normally in the context of discussions about evidence for the Resurrection. The claim is that rumors about Elvis' still being alive form a model for how the church might have come to believe that Jesus' was resurrected even if he wasn't. --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/05/91)
In article <May.3.02.32.33.1991.23617@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > >>Why? Why does a change mean that something perfect either is closer to >>perfection or farther from it? It is now something different, and it can >>be perfect both as what it was, and as what it is now. If I took a >>perfect stool, and added a back to it to make it a perfect chair, does >>that deny that it was a perfect stool to begin with? > >This does not seem at all logically equivalent to the statements I am making. >The fact remains that a *perfect* GOD could never change. This has nothing >at all to do with stools or chairs. And neither could His perfect laws >be changed or interrupted. What statement would this being making about the >perfection of said laws? We don't understand perfection, but we need to learn >to understand it, in order to understand our God. And it IS possible to do so. I believe your original statement followed this reasoning. God is perfect. God created the natural laws. For Jesus *body* to rise from the dead, and walk through walls would require changing the natural laws. Therefore this would require that the natural laws were not perfect to begin with. If this were true than it must also follow that God must not be perfect. Since we know that God is perfect, then this requires that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave, nor did his body walk through walls. My arguement is that: 1. Jesus bodily resurrection (and walking through walls) need not break natural laws. 2. For God to change his laws does not require that the original laws were imperfect. 3. Imperfect natural laws do not refute the perfection of God. A number of the acts of Jesus recorded in the Bible represent violations of the natural laws as we understand them. So, either Jesus was able to violate natural laws, or we do not have an adequate understanding of what the natural laws are, or God overruled the laws of nature for the sake of Jesus. Even if it were necessary for God to expand the natural laws in order for Jesus to rise from the dead, this does not require that the natural laws originally created were imperfect. The laws are only different. The set of laws before Jesus can be perfect, and the set of laws after Jesus can also be perfect. For instance, early mathematics only required addition and subtraction. Later, multiplication and division were added. Mathematics now had new capabilities. This does not imply that Mathematics was imperfect before, nor imperfect after. The systems are different systems. There had been no need for multiplication and division before, later there was. 2 dimensional geometry can be logically derived from a series of laws or postulates. Change a postulate, you get a different geometry, both geometries are perfect. 2 dimensional geometry can be extended to cover 3 dimensions. The 2 dimensional geometry remains perfect, and the new 3 dimensional geometry which was derived from it can also be perfect. Even if it *did* imply that the laws created by God were originally imperfect, and then perfected at the time of Jesus, this does not require that God be imperfect, since God also created imperfect human beings. You reply that human beings are capable of "developing ourselves to perfection, as is willed by God". (Therefore God did not create imperfect beings.) This seems in conflict with your protestation about imperfect laws of nature. If a creation of God (humanity) that is capable of developing itself into perfection does not refute the perfection of God, then why does a set of natural laws that can be developed into perfection refute the perfection of God? >The same natural laws which sufficed to bring Creation into existence >naturally also suffice to maintain it. I would say that any "miracle" >that would require violating the natural laws is impossible and never >really took place. On the other hand, many more things are possible >according to the natural laws than what we have been hitherto aware of. You agree that many things are possible which appear to break natural laws, because we are not aware of all the things which the natural laws allow. (Why then not the passing of Jesus' body through a wall?) >The raising of Lazarus "from the dead" for instance, was possible as >the soul of Lazarus had not yet severed its connection with the physical >body, i.e., the so-called silver cord often spoken of in this regard. >The Divine power available to Jesus was required in the case of Lazarus, >but this happening was in accordance with the natural laws of Creation. >As far as "walking on water", I have to say that I do not know the answer >at this time as to whether or not it happened, but I do know that if it did >take place that there must be an explanation which accords with the natural >laws -- as in every happening! Your "silver cord" does not fall into the body of "natural laws" that we have so far divined. To explain "walking on water" you assume that if it was possible it must be due to natural laws. Why are you willing to accept "natural laws" that allow for a silver cord, and for walking on water, but not for the ability for a person to pass bodily through a solid wall, (which I don't find an account of in the Gospels, just that there was a locked room which Jesus appeared in unexpectedly. And if you are willing to accept that the Gospels lie about the bodily resurrection of Jesus, then you might as easily believe that the Gospels lied about him appearing in a room which was securely locked. Therefore, since he did not necessarily walk through a wall, he need not break any natural law preventing him from doing so. [This would of course be more consistant with the stone that was rolled away from the mouth of the tomb if we assume the stone was rolled away to allow Jesus to leave the tomb.]) Your reference to a "silver cord" is of course outside of the experience of Christianity as well. So, let me point out that there are also claims made by Trancendental Meditators that people while in a deep state of meditation have passed physically through solid walls. (As well as their more widely known claims of levitation.) The TMers I know do not claim that through TM people may break the laws of nature. Their claim is that like your "silver cord" there are principles of the laws of nature that we do not yet fully understand. (Which any serious scientist must agree with.) >Yes, I would say that it is impossible, according to the natural laws, for >a physical body to pass through a wall. In the case of walking on water, I >am not so sure. It does happen that human beings sometimes have help from >animistic beings, which may seem "miraculous" to those unaware of such help. >In the same way I believe it was possible for Jesus to command the wind and >the sea, since these phenomena are also influenced by "invisible" animistic >beings, who work in the Will of God. Your appeal to "animistic beings" also reaches outside of the natural laws as we currently understand them, and yet you won't make room for the ability of a body to pass through a wall. >"Souls and spirits" are subject to the laws governing THEIR respective realms. >They are NON-physical forms and therefore would NOT be subject to physical >laws. This is entirely logical and consistent. Okay, so "Souls and spirits" must obey the laws of their realm, and matter must obey the laws of it's realm. This is itself logical and consistant. It would seem to be at odds with the Bible, unless you are willing to accept that we do not know all of the laws governing the spiritual realm, or the physical realm, or the interaction between the two realms. >What I reject is any interpretation which implies an imperfection in God, >His Holy Will, and His perfect laws in Creation. And what I am trying to explain to you is that the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the ability of Jesus body to appear in a locked room *does not* imply imperfection in God, God's Will, or the laws of Creation. It need only imply an imperfect understanding on our part of God's laws of creation. Which would be consistant with our imperfect understanding of God's Will, and of God himself. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton [Paul talks about people after death assuming a "spiritual body" (see I Cor 15). It seems reasonable to believe that Jesus' resurrected body was of that kind. Presumably it can go through walls. --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/07/91)
In article <May.5.00.38.57.1991.29046@athos.rutgers.edu> I wrote: (In part). >And what I am trying to explain to you is that the bodily resurrection >of Jesus and the ability of Jesus body to appear in a locked room *does >not* imply imperfection in God, God's Will, or the laws of Creation. To which OFM replied: (In full) >[Paul talks about people after death assuming a "spiritual body" (see >I Cor 15). It seems reasonable to believe that Jesus' resurrected >body was of that kind. Presumably it can go through walls. --clh] I can accept that this is "reasonable". But, Paul seems to imply in I Corinthians 15:50 that the "spirtual body" is not made of "flesh and blood". Wheras in Matthew 28:9 the disciples take hold of Jesus' feet. In Luke 24:37-43 Jesus has the disciples feel his "flesh and bones", and eats fish. In John 20:20 Jesus shows the disciples his hands and his side, and of course in John 20:27 Thomas is invited to examine Jesus' wounds, (and does). It seems that these Gospel authors wanted to stress that Jesus himself wanted to prove to the disciples that he was "not a ghost", but had risen bodliy from the dead, (with all his body intact.) One may argue that the Gospel authors added these details later, but I think it's clear that they were intent upon showing that Jesus rose from the grave with the body he went in with. Now if a person feels they cannot reasonably accept that Jesus rose bodily from the grave for whatever reason that's fine with me. However if they imply that their interpretation is the only "reasonable" one then I feel I must object. I do not ask them to adopt another system of beliefs, only that they be considerate of the beliefs held by others. If they attempt to disprove the beliefs of others using logic which I feel to be faulty, I feel compelled to refute it. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (05/07/91)
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In article <Apr.23.03.13.00.1991.2514@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >> >>Yes, Jesus WAS seen by many following His death on the cross, but it was >>NOT the physical body of Jesus which was seen. It was His spiritual body, >>or better said, His soul, which naturally at that time still manifested >>the wounds that He had so recently been forced to suffer. It was given >>to those close to Jesus to be able to see and hear that which normally they >>would not see and hear for the sake of strengthening their faith in Jesus >>and the truth of His Message. >In 1 Cor. 15, Paul sets forth the Gospel that he was preaching to >others in very clear and plain terms. This is also the Gospel that >Paul received, namely "..how that Christ died for our sins...And that >he was buried, and that he rose again the third day..." Note: The fact is that Christ died *because* of our sins, that He indeed bore (the mark of) our sins, but that is another topic... Yes, Christ rose again on the third day. Indeed, He rose bodily. The only point of difference then is the notion that it was His non-physical body or soul, rather than His physical body. If it is still so difficult for us to grasp this point even today, 2000 years after the fact, it should come as no surprise that the people of that time also would not fully comprehend what had happened. But this in no way can alter the reality of what actually took place at that time. >When Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, was being transported to Rome >for his execution, he wrote these words: "For I know that after His >resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh and I believe He is >so now...And thus was He, with flesh, received up in their sight unto >Him that sent Him, being with that same flesh to come again, >accompanied by glory and power." Since you raise the point, I would have to say that Ignatius was mistaken. >The conclusion of the Apostle's Creed (the Old Roman Creed) affirms >the "resurrection of the flesh" (sarkos anastasin) and the "life >evelasting." And what is a resurrection if that which dies is not >also that which is raised up? It is everything when people have no real knowledge of life after death. I think that Jesus meant to show mankind that nothing is really lost by undergoing physical death -- that the physcial body is but a covering, and that the real person is just as much there after death as before. What else are the soul and spirit if not also BODIES, but only of a finer substance than is the transient physical body. >In John 2:18-22, we find Jesus has just thrown the moneychangers out >of the temple. The Jews have said to him, "'What sign have you to >show us, since you are doing these things?' In answer Jesus said to >them, 'Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'" >In verse 21 we read, "But he was talking about the temple of his >body." Verse 22 reads, "When, though, he was raised up from the dead, >his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and the >believed the Scripture and the saying Jesus said." >Please notice that Jesus Himself said that it would be His body, the >physical body, that He would raise up again. There is nothing in that >passage that causes anyone to believe otherwise. And the disciples >understood this. The term "body" does not necessarily refer to the physical body. It can also refer to the soul or to the spiritual body. Too fine a distinction for the people of that time perhaps, but surely one we can understand better today. >When Jesus appeared to the disciples, one time He ate with them. Can >a spirit eat? Another time Jesus is specific in saying that He is >eating to prove to them that He is physical for a spirit cannot eat. >Then Jesus appears before the disciples (Luke 24:39) and comforts them >saying, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch me and >see, for spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." >Jesus said it in the strongest way He could; He was risen from the >dead. He presented physical proof -- His human body. Yes, a spirit can eat spiritual food. Why not? If indeed the disciples were permitted to see the spiritual body (or soul) of Jesus, it would stand to reason that they would be able to see Him partake also of food. I feel that Jesus had to act and to speak as He did in order to combat the FALSE notion of spirit that appeared to prevail then, as it still does even today. He had to reassure them that He was just as *real* as He ever was, and therefore that all men could also hope for eternal life. He had no choice but to speak to men according to their limited understanding of things. There was much that He could not say, and He told us so Himself. As already said in previous postings, it seems evident from the accounts that there must have been something different about the body of Jesus, or else it should not have been so difficult to convince those who had been with Him for years that it was still Him. The difference was that they were seeing His soul or non-physical body. In order to refute the unhealthy conception of "spirit" as something which is "disembodied" and "unreal", I think that Jesus laid stress upon those things which would be "familiar" to His disciples, such as His wounds, (which the non-physical body also bore) as well as the act of sharing a meal together. >Paul, in the 1 Cor. 15 passage that I referred to previously, makes >this comment (this is verse 14 from the Amplified): "If Christ has not >risen, then our preaching is in vain (amounts to nothing) and your >faith is devoid of truth and is fruitless -- without efffect, >imaginary and unfounded." Did Paul really believe that Jesus had been >resurrected bodily; decide for yourself based upon what he wrote to >Timothy: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, >the *man* Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV). I have not yet heard anyone's reply to I Cor 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can obtain no part in the kingdom of God, ..." It seems clear enough to me. >The Bible clearly states that Jesus was resurrected bodily from the >dead. It was not some disembodied spirit or soul that wandered about. Yes, it is clearly stated. As said before, the difference comes in the idea that the soul and the spirit are just as much BODIES as is the physical body. It is only natural that while on this earth we would tend to identify most closely with the physical body, but this attitude must change very quickly following physical death. What you have just said in fact demonstrates my point, for the notion of a "disembodied" spirit or soul arises from our bias in favor of the physical body and against the spirit or soul body. And it was against just this bias and ignorance that Jesus had to work. He had to do what He could to show that He was no less "real" than before. It was not easy! >The body was not found in the tomb because Jesus rose from the dead as >He said that He would. The body of Jesus Christ came alive again and >walked the face of the earth for another 40 days before ascending into >heaven. This is the truth of Scripture and is the assurance to us >that there will also be a resurrection for us at the return of our >Blessed Hope. Like returns to like in nature and everywhere in Creation. Jesus returned to the Father from whence He had come--in both instances without the need for a physical body. The human spirit ultimately must return to Paradise, to the spiritual realms, from whence it originated. And the physical body in every case must return into the physical substance from which it came. And nothing can go beyond its point of origin. Man cannot stand before God (except figuratively) and physical bodies cannot enter into Paradise. It is wonderful to hope and long for salvation, but it is not realistic to expect to bring the physical body along with. Nor is it at all necessary. >There is no reincarnation, only resurrection. I'm very glad you mentioned reincarnation at this point, since the concept of "resurrection of the flesh" actually has its fulfillment in the process of reincarnation, wherein the human spirit is gracefully permitted a further chance to live upon the earth and to develop itself through earthly life such that it can become worthy to ascend into the eternal realm of the spirit. Cheers, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/08/91)
In article <May.7.00.45.11.1991.14935@athos.rutgers.edu> sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) writes: >>evelasting." And what is a resurrection if that which dies is not >>also that which is raised up? >I have not yet heard anyone's reply to I Cor 15:50 > > "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood can obtain > no part in the kingdom of God, ..." > >It seems clear enough to me. Well, you're using one verse in the Bible to attempt to disprove many others. Why not, (based upon the Gospels), point out that the author of this verse was wrong. Or that what he said did not apply to Jesus (or to Elijah for that matter). As a picky little point, (and a possible loophole in your verse). Jesus already *had* the kingdom of God, therefore he didn't need to *obtain* anything, so the verse doesn't apply. (Now how do I get Elijah's body in?) ;-) This of course is a silly little rationalization. I have a few Gospel authors on my side, and all you got is one Paul, so I win! Nyeah Nyeah Nyeah! I'm not trying to say that your interpretation of the Gospels is wrong! It is an interpretation that you have obviously considered. What I object to is my perception that you believe that no other explanation is valid. I *personally believe* that this question of whether or not Jesus physical body rose from the grave is of minor importance compared to your response to the teachings of Jesus. There's no need for us to go beating each other up over our personal interpretations. Are you trying to work for the Kingdom? Are you trying to follow Jesus' teachings? Great! Years from now, you may get to ask Jesus in person. "So, Jesus, Tell me, Who got the story straight?" Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton as a picky little point one might argue that Jesus already *posessed* the kingdom of God, and therefore since he needn't obtain it, then I've got a loophole.
John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) (05/08/91)
In article <Apr.24.22.54.18.1991.10572@athos.rutgers.edu> jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Johann) writes: > Our Lord specifically says after his appearance, "Why are you > troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts? See me hands and my > feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and > bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39 RSV) > The same passage claims that the savior took a piece of fish and ate it > in front of the disciples. Yet, Revelation 7:16 clearly states that > in our heavenly forms we "shall hunger no more". How do you reconcile the > two? I was struck while reading this part of the discussion with an idea that had never occurred to me before and which I've never seen mentioned, which is If Jesus was dead when taken from the cross and prepared for burial, then was the body of Jesus God incarnate or had God left the body, which strikes of modalism and certainly Aristotlian thought, or was the Christ still present in the dead body. For those who believe in the Shoud of Turin as being the burial wrap of Christ, was the image caused by a coronal event which may have been the return of God to the body? Or did the body accompany Jesus's spirit to Hell and back (as it apparantly did to Heaven according to the accounts in Acts and especially the Luke quoted above)? If the body was Christless during the post crucifixion period could it also have been Christless at conception? John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II
pbh@jake.tmc.edu (Patrick Haggood) (05/08/91)
In article <May.2.05.02.23.1991.2797@athos.rutgers.edu> ddtisvr!daly@uunet.uu.net (Kathy Daly) writes: >Too bad the angels didn't leave the stone in place over the >entrance to the tomb. It would have been much more dramatic Actually, I think it would be more dramatic for me to find that a buried coffin was burst out from inside under 6 feet of dirt than to dig it up myself and find the coffin empty (guess I've seen too much Agitha Christie.... oop! Pun!) -- Patrick B. Haggood Wayne STate University Detroit, MI Physics - Class of 1991 (-2?)
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (05/11/91)
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >My arguement is that: >1. Jesus bodily resurrection (and walking through walls) need not break > natural laws. Although many things are possible within the natural laws, these are not. Neither would it have been possible for Jesus to change stones to bread (and therein lay the purpose for the temptation). The point here is to show the necessity for us to become thoroughly familiar with the natural laws in Creation, which are nothing else but the expression of God's Will. >2. For God to change his laws does not require that the original laws > were imperfect. This is a difficult point, as already discussed, but also is incorrect. Although DEVELOPMENT is indeed allowed for in Creation, it is also the case that the development must take place WITHIN the framework of the Laws of Creation, or the natural laws they are also called. The Laws themselves, being the expression or manifestation of the Divine Will in Creation, could never change, any more than the Divine Will Itself could or would ever change. It is a matter of finding the true understanding of the concept of perfection, as it applies to God and to His Creation. >3. Imperfect natural laws do not refute the perfection of God. But surely they would! If we truly are convinced of the perfection of God, then we must also be convinced of the perfection of His Creation, meaning also of its Laws, which themselves unceasingly carry out Divine Justice. >A number of the acts of Jesus recorded in the Bible represent violations >of the natural laws as we understand them. So, either Jesus was able to >violate natural laws, or we do not have an adequate understanding of >what the natural laws are, or God overruled the laws of nature for the >sake of Jesus. Or some events were not correctly recorded. Or also we do not correctly interpret some of the narratives in the Bible. >Even if it were necessary for God to expand the natural laws in order >for Jesus to rise from the dead, this does not require that the natural >laws originally created were imperfect. The laws are only different. >The set of laws before Jesus can be perfect, and the set of laws after >Jesus can also be perfect. But it was not necessary to "expand" the natural laws. They were perfect from the beginning, and so how could they need to be changed in any way? It has always been possible -within the natural laws- for a human spirit to become free from the material world and to ascend into heaven. It was only that this fact needed to be demonstrated to mankind by Jesus so that we could truly become convinced of this vital happening. So that we could truly understand that people do NOT cease to exist with physical death. Did not Jesus Himself say: "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ..." (Matt 5:17) >For instance, early mathematics only required addition and subtraction. > ... [deleted for space] >2 dimensional geometry can be logically derived from a series of >laws or postulates. Change a postulate, you get a different geometry, >both geometries are perfect. >2 dimensional geometry can be extended to cover 3 dimensions. The 2 >dimensional geometry remains perfect, and the new 3 dimensional geometry >which was derived from it can also be perfect. But all this does not change the fact that the LAWS of mathematics always existed and have never changed. It is only our knowledge of the laws that changes and develops, not the laws themselves. Sure, we can invent our own laws, but then these are not part of Creation as such, but only human opinion or invention. >Even if it *did* imply that the laws created by God were originally >imperfect, and then perfected at the time of Jesus, this does not >require that God be imperfect, since God also created imperfect human >beings. Perhaps I did not state this clearly enough before, so here it is again: GOD DID NOT CREATE IMPERFECT HUMAN BEINGS !!! Perhaps it was misleading when I said that human beings can develop to perfection. It would be better to say "develop to full maturity", or to perfect self-consciousness. Human beings are PERFECTLY capable of becoming whatever we want to become. Of doing whatever we want to do. Including developing ourselves according to the Will of God into fully mature human spirits who shall be permitted to experience eternal happiness (joyful activity) in the Kingdom of God. If we choose imperfectly, then this is ENTIRELY our own RESPONSIBILITY, for it was always possible for us to have chosen otherwise. For example, a PERFECT seed can become a PERFECT tree. Both are PERFECT in that sense. But development is allowed for in Creation. Development of creatures, of forms, but NOT of the Laws of Creation. Big difference. Because all development in Creation takes place in accordance with the existing Laws of Creation, and always shall. And herein lies JUSTICE. But suppose our PERFECT seed had FREE WILL, and thereby was able to choose NOT to develop into a PERFECT tree? This does not mean that it was never a PERFECT seed, but only that it chose to MISUSE its FREE WILL and thus to develop in a direction NOT willed by the Creator. The RESPONSIBILITY for the wrong or imperfect development does NOT lie with the Creator, but only with the creature who FREELY CHOSE a wrong course of development. Creation itself, including all its Laws, was, is, and always shall be perfect. Implying that there can be no -fundamental- change within it. No change in its Laws. Only ongoing development according to the Laws. >You agree that many things are possible which appear to break natural >laws, because we are not aware of all the things which the natural laws >allow. (Why then not the passing of Jesus' body through a wall?) This is exactly why we need to "know" Creation and its Laws. So that we become aware of what is possible and what is not. Therewith we become capable of clearly seeing our path through Creation, according to the Will of God, which manifests Itself to us also in Creation itself. >>The raising of Lazarus "from the dead" for instance, was possible as >>the soul of Lazarus had not yet severed its connection with the physical >>body, i.e., the so-called silver cord often spoken of in this regard. >Your "silver cord" does not fall into the body of "natural laws" that we >have so far divined. To explain "walking on water" you assume that if >it was possible it must be due to natural laws. ... >Your reference to a "silver cord" is of course outside of the experience >of Christianity as well. ... (1) The "silver cord" is a well-known phenomenon, and I would claim that it does therefore fall into the body of "natural laws" we know about. (2) Walking on water does not require negating any physical law. For example, I could tie balloons to my feet and accomplish it. All it requires is an additional factor, which could potentially be supplied in any of several ways, including I claim, by the assistance of elemental beings. I mean no disrespect with this example, but only wish to make a point here. On the other hand, for two physical objects to occupy the same space simultaneously would require negating a physical law. Big difference. (3) I would not claim that the knowledge of the "silver cord" is entirely outside of Christianity, but even if it were, my answer would be that perhaps it is incumbent also upon Christians to strive always to increase their knowledge of Creation and its workings. But please see Ecc 12:1-6 for a reference to the "silver cord". One can always claim that it is merely "allegorical", but is it really? >Your appeal to "animistic beings" also reaches outside of the natural >laws as we currently understand them, and yet you won't make room for >the ability of a body to pass through a wall. Once again, the existence of animistic or elemental beings has been known down through the ages. I would agree that mankind has never really understood them nor their activity, but today this knowledge too is available to us in the Grail Message. The elemental beings stand and work in the natural laws. >Okay, so "Souls and spirits" must obey the laws of their realm, and >matter must obey the laws of it's realm. This is itself logical and >consistant. It would seem to be at odds with the Bible, unless you are >willing to accept that we do not know all of the laws governing the >spiritual realm, or the physical realm, or the interaction between the >two realms. I don't think it is so much at odds with Biblical happenings as with our limited human understanding and interpretation of said happenings. Once again, big difference. I think that the knowledge of God's Perfection and of His perfect Laws can serve as the foundation for our spiritual ascent. >And what I am trying to explain to you is that the bodily resurrection >of Jesus and the ability of Jesus body to appear in a locked room *does >not* imply imperfection in God, God's Will, or the laws of Creation. >It need only imply an imperfect understanding on our part of God's laws of >creation. Which would be consistant with our imperfect understanding of >God's Will, and of God himself. But taking it the other way, the better we learn to know Creation, which means to know the Will of God made manifest in its laws, the better we will be able to understand the actual significance of Biblical events. And I say that this is knowledge that we are all meant to find. Best regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/11/91)
In article <May.8.04.16.36.1991.11274@athos.rutgers.edu> John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >If Jesus was dead when taken from the cross and prepared for burial, then >was the body of Jesus God incarnate or had God left the body, which >strikes of modalism and certainly Aristotlian thought, or was the Christ >still present in the dead body. For those who believe in the Shoud of >Turin as being the burial wrap of Christ, was the image caused by a >coronal event which may have been the return of God to the body? Or did >the body accompany Jesus's spirit to Hell and back (as it apparantly did >to Heaven according to the accounts in Acts and especially the Luke quoted >above)? If the body was Christless during the post crucifixion period >could it also have been Christless at conception? Well, I've always looked upon Jesus as being like me, only where I have a soul in my body, Jesus has something else. (God with skin on.) In my understanding, when we die our bodies become lifeless. (Our souls leave our bodies.) So, by my understanding, yes, when the Body of Jesus died, it was Christless. Now, as for whether the body was Christless at conception... Herein lies much of the quandry over abortion. At what point does a fetus/baby gain a sole? (At what point is it human?) Some equate soul with breath. So, when the baby's first breath enters it, the soul does as well. Assuming this is true, then I would say that Jesus' body became "Christful" at it's first breath. If this is true, (and the soul enters the body at first breath), then souls enter the bodies of babies all the time with no coronal event, (Although the soul of Christ might act differently obviously.) Still others believe that the moment of conception represents the start of life, and from that moment on the baby has a soul. Assuming this is true then I would say that Christ was within Jesus from the start. (This would be helpful in explaining the baby John leaping for joy within Elizabeth. Luke 1:39-45). Of course, both souls may have entered their respective bodies prenatal, but postconception. However, assuming that the soul enters at conception, I haven't heard any reports of doctors observing coronal events in petri dishes during invitro fertilization. (Of course perhaps in the unusual event of a soul re-entering a dead body there is a coronal event.) Here's yet another possibility. Jesus' body wasn't in all that good shape. If the Christ were once again to inhabit it, there was a lot of repair work to be done. (Blood to replace, wounds to heal etc.) Perhaps at this time there was a coronal event. (If all of the wounds were quickly cauterized or something of the like for instance.) I don't know, I'm not all that big on "The Shroud". Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton [I hope you realize that your concept is one of the classical Christological heresies (Apollonarianism, I believe). The orthodox position is that all of Jesus' parts, including his soul, are human. In the Incarnation, God took an entire human being to himself. As Irenaeus (I think -- my theological library is at home) said: "what was not assumed could not be saved". I.e. if God only took on a human body, what relevance does the incarnation have to us? Our sinfulness is not primarily a problem of the body, but the soul. The classical position is that there are two things going on in Christ: Looked at as a human being, he is a complete, normal human being. Looked at from God's side, God in his fullness is present in him. (This is a paraphrase of the symbol of Chalcedon.) --clh]
lindborg@jade.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (05/13/91)
In article <May.10.23.33.37.1991.27629@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Well, I've always looked upon Jesus as being like me, only where I have >a soul in my body, Jesus has something else. (God with skin on.) Well if Jesus was merely God with "clothes on" (or the "Logos wrapped in flesh" as Justin said) in what way was He human? He MUST have been human to have been tempted and suffered pain, died etc... surely God could not possibly be tempted or die. >[I hope you realize that your concept is one of the classical >Christological heresies (Apollonarianism, I believe). The orthodox >position is that all of Jesus' parts, including his soul, are human. >In the Incarnation, God took an entire human being to himself. As >Irenaeus (I think -- my theological library is at home) said: "what >was not assumed could not be saved". I.e. if God only took on a human >body, what relevance does the incarnation have to us? Yes, this was indeed Irenaeus. He was concerned with the idea of "recapitulation" which was the notion that man kind "fell" as a result of Adam's sin and that the only way to rectify the situation is to do it "over" with Christ playing the part parallel to Adam. Hence Christ must have been human (as was Adam), Eve was a virgin who was "played" by Mary and the tree was represented by the cross. He considered Christ a new begining for mankind... sort of starting over and doing it right this time. However, if Christ was "fully" human, in what way was he divine? Christ must have been divine to have brought mankind the possibility of salvation, but he must also have been human. This was (and is) a very difficult problem to solve and volumes were written by many different theologians. Today's orthodoxy still falls short of a proper explanation but covers itself by stating that mankind can never fully understand the divine and hence we must wait till we see God and ask him. I smell a cop-out... > Our sinfulness >is not primarily a problem of the body, but the soul. Personaly I liked Origen's idea that sinfulness was not an element in and of itself but a lack of closeness to the divine. This alleviated the need to explain why God created sin by stating that sin is merely a product of souls moving away from the perfection of God. This also offered an easy 'out' for how Jesus was sinless (he was 'one' with God) and human at the same time. Of course Origen also seemed to believe in reincarnation to a certain extent but we wont talk about that.... >The classical >position is that there are two things going on in Christ: Looked at as >a human being, he is a complete, normal human being. Looked at from >God's side, God in his fullness is present in him. This fails (of course) to address how Jesus's human spirit coexisted with the Logos (or divine) element. We they both present in Him? We they somehow 'melded' together or were they in seperate 'chambers' (as Tertullian believed... stating that the human did the suffering while the Logos did the divine stuff)? Was Christ's spirit somehow perfect (and arguably, then, not human)? It was the fate of the early Christian coucils to bring up more controversies then they attempted to solve. Chancelon (in an attempt to 'path-up' Nicaea) was no exception. Jeff Lindborg [I believe the orthodox position is that both a human spirit and the divine Logos are present in Christ. The concept of a melding together of human and divine attributes is clearly rejected by Chalcedon. As you say, many Christians are content to leave the Incarnation a mystery. My own view is, which I believe is in accordance with Chalcedon, is that what is going on is on two levels, and each event must be understood on both levels. On the human level, Jesus suffered as any other human being who is crucified. On God's level, Jesus is really God's presence in human history, so God himself suffers. Your suggestion that things were separated so that suffering is assigned to God and "divine stuff" to the Logos might be regarded as failing to do justice to the unity of Christ's person. On the one hand, there is a recognition that suffering is properly speaking something that can only happen to a human. Thus it happens to God only by virtue of the union of human and divine (the "communication of attributes"). But the whole "theotokos" debate indicates that the church did want to say that both natures were involved in all aspects of Christ, both suffering and "divine stuff". I agree that many of the theological formula seem to raise as many questions as they answer. I don't feel that way about Chalcedon though. It doesn't mandate a specific Christology -- after all, it was designed to allow moderate versions of both Alexandrian and Antiochene theology. It has been claimed that Chalcedon sets up a series of requirements on Christology which no actual fully-specified Christology can meet (i.e. that it is self-contradictory). However I believe Theodore of Mopsuestia's theology is both coherent and consistent with Chalcedon. Many believe that there is also an Alexandrian theology that meets these criteria, but I am not sufficiently sympathetic with Alexandrian Christology to judge. I don't think one would say that Christ's perfection makes him not human. The Christian position has generally been that God's original creation of human nature was perfect. Sin is present in us all, but is a result of the Fall, and is not inherent in being human. This distinguishes sin from simple finitude. That is, we need not imagine that Christ knew everything. That would violate the limitation of being a finite creature. But obeying God perfectly does not. (This does leave some obvious open questions, including where the Fall came from if human nature was created perfect. This is a discussion we've had fairly recently, so I'm not going to renew it here.) --clh]
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark Sandrock) (05/14/91)
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >Well, I've always looked upon Jesus as being like me, only where I have >a soul in my body, Jesus has something else. (God with skin on.) We have a soul, but the soul is also a "covering". Our essence is "spirit". In the case of Jesus, He would also have had a soul, but His essence would properly be called "Divine unsubstantiality". The essence is that which is truly "alive" within a person. E.g., the spirit animates the body. (It is spirit which is the "breath" spoken of in the Bible.) Animals have souls of animistic substantiality, but nothing of the spirit. Hence the old saw about the theory of evolution teaching that mankind is descended from "monkeys" fails to consider the difference in essence, which comprises the fundamental difference in nature between men and animals. >Now, as for whether the body was Christless at conception... Herein >lies much of the quandry over abortion. At what point does a fetus/baby >gain a sole? (At what point is it human?) The soul actually incarnates during the middle of the pregnancy. This event naturally corresponds with the first movements of the unborn child. From the moment of conception, however, there are invisible threads linking the soul to the physical body (fetus). Thus, with an abortion, these links are also being destroyed. A responsibility that should be borne in mind, as the Fifth Commandment surely applies to more than only physical killing, but also would apply on the "psychic level" of hope, trust, talents, and so on. Anything that bears real life within itself. Regards, Mark Sandrock -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/14/91)
Perhaps there are no real "Natural Laws." Maybe God is actively involved in his creation at all times, growing trees, and "Natural laws" are a product of God's organization and consistency. Hebrews 1 says that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his power. Even if there were laws, maybe there are so many that we do not and cannot know about, which could explain Philip disappearing and reappearing a long distance away. Maybe God used his own power to do it. Natural law might say that a stone must stay in place. You can pick up the rock with your hand. The rock does not know that you are allowed to violate this law, but yet you do it. Are you a deist? Also, about Jesus walking through the wall, he was physically ressurected, but not exactly like our bodies. It is a glorified body. A guru might be able to pass through a wall because of some demonic spirit who can make him levitate (maybe by picking him up, if you wan to look at it that way) or even make him mose through matter. There is a lot that we do not know. We should not try to impose our limited understanding on an infinite God, to say tht he can and cannot violate certain laws. he knows all the rules and we do not. If there are any rules, outside from the nature of His own character. Link Hudson
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/17/91)
Was Jesus God from the womb. I would say he was Gad at the moment fo conception. If John was filled with the Holy Ghost in his mother's womb, then I think we can conclude that he was a human being at this point. If Jesus was a human in the womb and at the same time not God, then how did Jesus become God? Jesus is God and has always been God. Also, in the Old Testament, if a mother had a miscarriage because someone hit her in the stomach, the man would be killed. If the baby was born without an eye, then the man's eye would be removed. Link Hudson
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/19/91)
In article <May.17.02.48.15.1991.27982@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >Also, in the Old Testament, if a mother had a miscarriage because >someone hit her in the stomach, the man would be killed. If the baby >was born without an eye, then the man's eye would be removed. Exodus 21:22-27 22 "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnat woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the wone who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demads, subject to the approval of the judges. 23 But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 26 "If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye and puts it out, he is to free the slave as payment for the eye. 27 If he knocks out a tooth, he is to free the slave as payment for the tooth. It would appear that the law gives much more attention to the woman than to her unborn child. Even if the child is killed, the man is only fined. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (05/23/91)
In article <May.18.22.39.22.1991.13939@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >In article <May.17.02.48.15.1991.27982@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >>Also, in the Old Testament, if a mother had a miscarriage because >>someone hit her in the stomach, the man would be killed. If the baby >>was born without an eye, then the man's eye would be removed. > >Exodus 21:22-27 > > 22 "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnat woman so that she >loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the wone who >hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demads, >subject to the approval of the judges. 23 But if the woman herself is >injured, the punishment shall be life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth >for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for >wound, bruise for bruise. > 26 "If a man hits his male or female slave in the eye and puts it out, >he is to free the slave as payment for the eye. 27 If he knocks out a >tooth, he is to free the slave as payment for the tooth. > >It would appear that the law gives much more attention to the woman than >to her unborn child. Even if the child is killed, the man is only >fined. > > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton To criticize Jewish law it is necessary to understand it. Unfortunately, perusal of the Tanach will not give one that understanding. Instead it is necessary to study how that law is applied. This can only be gotten through Talmud. If one studies Sanhedrin (a tractate in the Talmud) you will find that it is *incredibly* difficult to get these penalties (all the various deaths, blinding, lashes, etc.). However, it is not lenient with respect to treatment of slaves, animals or other things along those lines. The Jewish law is not the law of "an eye for an eye". Jewish law does hold that this is necessary in extreme cases, but attempts are made to correct the offender through other means first. Although, take it or leave it, Jewish law does not consider the termination of a fetus to be murder. Please, do not look upon Jews as a people that believe in the primacy of Justice. G-d has several names, Adonai and Elohim are both in that set. Jesus came out of that culture, and the idea that one should "do unto his neighbor as you would have him do unto you" was a primary philosophy in Judaism well before his arrival. James mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu -- (I've got Joe Applegate and Messianic in my scj kill file... but I read t.r.misc, if you have something to say about what I write on those subjects, then post there and not in scj)
Steve.Hix@eng.sun.com (Steve Hix) (05/24/91)
In article <May.22.21.03.58.1991.20743@athos.rutgers.edu> mejicovs@eniac.seas.upenn.edu writes: > >The Jewish law is not the law of "an eye for an eye". No, but that does state the upper permissible limit of recompense permitted for some violation. Certainly an improvement over what held previously... -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------