Wasn't this a (very bad) movie?While it goes without saying that this theory will generate its own whirlwind of controversy, I have to wonder what is so bad about the possibility of a resurrection that was not bodily? Although I doubt the ability to conclusively prove that this particular site is the tomb of THE "Jesus of Nazareth," the possibility of its existence is not at all threatening to my faith.
I think only a very shallow faith and reading of the Christian tradition makes it's truth claims absolutely dependent on a literal interpretation and understanding of resurrection.
The Christian faith is about much more than literal facts. It is about a transcendent message that embodies a truth not dependent on historical fact. Resurrection can be true regardless of what happened to Jesus' body. It is the claim that death is not the end, that love and life can and do triumph despite the brokenness of the world in which we live. We don't need the evidence of an empty tomb to witness to this truth in our lives. We testify to the power of resurrection as it bubbles up through the cracks of despair each and every day.
13 comments:
Many of the Gnostic Gospel authors discussed encountering the resurrected Jesus in spiritual forms, and denied the rumors of a physical resurrection. That is, they wrote that they had seen or talked with Jesus in visions which were spiritual in nature. This is interesting to me because one of the great apologetic arguments given for Christians to believe in the resurrection is that all 11 disciples (minus Judas) and many others saw him, as recorded by the gospels. But this argument gets blown to bits when one reads the accounts of Philip, Thomas, and others, denying that such an event occurred. Of course, we have no way of knowing that those individuals actually wrote the texts attributed to them.
Personally, I used to believe much the same as you, in that the reality of the resurrection carried little importance to Jesus’ message. But I concluded that I was in error, because how do you separate the passages of Jesus’ message [which to me was a humanitarian message of how we are supposed to treat each other and live our lives] with the accompanying passages in which he discussed the reasons for his death, and the fact that he would in fact be bodily raised? I cannot separate the two. Either his words are trustworthy or they aren’t. So, I now choose to my life by the message Jesus preached, which is the same message taught by all peaceable religions, as well as most atheists, and therefore I have no reason to follow Christianity.
In any case, I would love for Antonio Banderas to portray Jesus in a movie. Then again, it would be kinda weird to be lusting after the Savior.
Another longer response will come, but for now, suffice it to say that there is a loooong body of literature on lusting after Jesus in gay theology...perfectly fine, perfectly normal.
I thought I had a long response coming...but not really. There is nothing I disagree with.
There is foreshadowing of the coming resurrection in the gospels...they were written already knowing the end of the story. However, the first witnesses experienced this thing we call resurrection, it was so powerful that it colored the rest of the story.
The texts that we have were all written well after the resurrection event. While they include the "Jesus tradition" that we assume Jesus taught, they also include the opinions and presuppositions of the authors who wrote them; who wanted to communicate a very specific message (and we know that not all the authors had the same message from comparing the four with one another). Being written post-resurrection these texts served as guides as to how to interpret Jesus through the lens of the resurrection story.
My point was not so much about textual continuity in the narrative as much as it was a commenatary on resurrection beyond literal.
Bodily resurrection for me is meaningless. It has no place in my day to day life. A hope of being exhumed on the day of judgment seems painful and unnecessary, if not just completely insane. I need salvation now...not in the sweet bye and bye.
However, what does make sense and give me hope is the way in which I experience resurrection in the world...
Like the grandmother in a drug infested neighborhood who organizes neighbors to transform a needle junk yard into a bountious community garden. Or the children who sing songs of life at the funeral of an infant in a local garbage dump in Managua. Or the countless other examples of people who in the midst of death and despair proclaim life and hope.
I think more or less we are very similar in our faith convictions...we just name them different things.
Yes, but if we decide that we can take some of the Bible as fact and some of it as allegory or "truth but not fact," then aren't we just picking choosing what we want to believe. (That was my fundy impression. What do you think?)
I certainly agree with you about the transformation of life in the here and now being the thing that we must focus on.
MB - I really don't think the "picking and choosing" thing can be pigeonholed to a narrow minded fundy point of view. For me, it just doesn't make logical sense.
I get that, Jennifer, and I'm sorry if I was out of line. I just read Tiff's post and found myself channeling some of the "other" bloggers that I've read in the past.
LOL MB. I wasn't offended, just trying to understand.
There is no fact in the bible...it is a people's interpretation of their experience of God in history. There may be factual elements....but we don't really read for those...we read for a faith narrative/a story.
It is not picking and choosing (though we ALL do that to some extent...show me the fundy who wants to stone children to death...okay, nevermind, don't).
Rather it is using a meta-narrative by which to interpet the whole of scripture. And, within that, the meta-narrative can be seen through negative examples in scripture...like, offering your daughter for rape is not part of creating more love and justice.
Sorry I sound so ranty and direct...writing a dissertation makes me that way...
Tiffany, my question then is why do you subscribe to Christianity as a belief system?
That is a good question....
Mostly because the Christian story resonates with my own call to something more...I connect with the Christian call to the Kingdom/Reign of God and the image of God known throughout the whole of the hebrew testament and embodied in the life of Jesus. It is the faith story that makes most sense and which describes the Divine and our responsibility to that Divine the best. I've tried other religious systems but they don't function the same way for me.
It doesn't have to be literally true for me...the story speaks to me beyond fact.
I also have an experiential connection to the God known through this narrative...that is I feel connected to God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit moving and acting in my life (hence, my being Wesleyan).
I love Jesus (even if it only the interpretation of this man I know through the gospels) and feel convicted and called by the message he preached.
For me belief is not assent to a certain set of theological propositions, but rather a way of shaping and forming your life. Beliefe and faith are forms of action and reaction to the presence of God. I choose to (attempt) to shape and form my life in the form of the christic message preached and embodied in the life of Jesus.
It is the story, the narrative, the myth that commuicates best to me a sense of the Divine and our response to that in the world.
Perhaps, most fundamentally, I am Christian because I seek to foolow Jesus.
Tiffany, thanks for helping me understand.
yeah...i ask myself that questiojjn often...ha ha
Post a Comment