leov
Well-Known Member
It is perfect illustration of some Gnostic views. Just like in Jn20 Peter did not see Jesus in the tomb but Mary did see Him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Resurrection of Jesus: Allegorical Story or Historical Truth?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christ gospels resurrection
Many people do consider it symbolic, however orthodox and RC do not. Protestants will tell you directly that its symbolic. You are on your own deciding which.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
The bones of Caiphus were discovered. Pontius Pilate was also a very real character in history as a stone with his name on it was discovered.
Historians actually document the reality that Jesus existed. There is also the historical claim of an empty tomb.
From what i have listened to and read of, i am persuaded that a very real Jesus was executed on a Roman cross. But i have no Spirit, nor evidence to verify that Jesus rose from the dead.
I say he is an historical person. But to claim the story of Jesus is divine plan is wishful thinking. A divine message with the importance of saving souls would not be anything but obvious to all. Since Jesus is not obvious to all, i consider Jesus a fascinating historical character, nothing more then that.
Historians actually document the reality that Jesus existed. There is also the historical claim of an empty tomb.
From what i have listened to and read of, i am persuaded that a very real Jesus was executed on a Roman cross. But i have no Spirit, nor evidence to verify that Jesus rose from the dead.
I say he is an historical person. But to claim the story of Jesus is divine plan is wishful thinking. A divine message with the importance of saving souls would not be anything but obvious to all. Since Jesus is not obvious to all, i consider Jesus a fascinating historical character, nothing more then that.
Road Less Traveled
Active Member
Jesus the mere man and Baha’u’lla the manifestation of God, God himself correct?
Baha'is see both Jesus and Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God.
An allegorical story pointing to what, if I may ask?
Allegorical stories often have multiple meanings.
The phrase body of Christ was used many times in the New Testament to refer to the Church. So although Jesus died physically His spirit was resurrected through the church.
How is the church the Body of Christ?
Another meaning is that of life after death. Judaism was weak on the after life, whereas the emphasis was much greater in the NT.
leov
Well-Known Member
Body of Christ presumes fleshy (soma) representation in material world, not spiritual.
While that's interesting, what are your thoughts?
I don't believe Jesus literally rose from the dead. Nor was He roaming the earth for another 40 or so days until Pentecost. He did not ascend through the stratosphere to go into outer space where heaven was believed to be according to the cosmology of the day. The problems with this are insurmountable so we need to find another explanation.
Modern biblical scholarship has been helpful. The earliest gospel written was the gospel of Mark, 66 AD at the earliest. Mark wasn't an eye witness to the events he wrote. The evidence suggests that the other gospel writers weren't either, though the strongest evidence in this regard rests with the author of John being the apostle John.
So the accounts are based on oral traditions from the early Christians and apostles passed on through word of mouth. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is Pauls letter to Corinth (1 Corinthians 15:4-9). The whole gospel narrative may well have originated with Paul, as the idea of a God that rose from the dead resonated with the Greeks. Paul was a gifted orator and somewhat of a mystic. By the body of Christ He was referring to the church.
The main mode of communication used by Jesus to convey spiritual truths were allegorical stories called parables. It is only natural those who told the stories of the life and teachings of Jesus used similar allegorical stories woven into their accounts.
Interestingly each Gospel account would take no longer than 2 - 2 1/2 hours to read from start to finish, about the length of a feature length movie or a really well delivered sermon.
What is interesting is right now I am in the middle of reading a book written out of modern scholarship by John Dominic Crossan, titled 'The Power of Parable, How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus". (Disclaimer: his word "fiction" is what is commonly used in modern scholarship to describe these things, and hence my continued use of it here, as well as elsewhere. It is not used nor intended by them or me to be dismissive of others beliefs).
In his book he details three basic types of parables: Riddle parables (often with deadly consequences). That type of parable is considered as allegories by him; Example parables or moral stories; and Challenge parables or provocations.
The average person today reading Jesus' parables, such as the Good Samaritan read it as an example parable, as an example of what it is to be a good neighbor to a stranger in need. They read it as a moral story. But it is actually far more than that. Jesus' parable were more the 3rd type of parable, challenge parables.
The 2nd part of the book is taking the reader into how the authors of the Gospels took the parables by Jesus, and reinterpret them as different types of parables, creating a fiction about Jesus as parable of their own, such as the sower and the seed, and morphing it into riddle parable or allegory casting Jesus as trying to create incomprehension as the goal, and subsequent condemnation.
So in brief, I would not limit Jesus parables to be allegorical, which they generally were not, even though the different Gospel authors cast them in different ways, such as Mark turning the Sower and the Seed into a riddle parable. Thus they were creating fictions about Jesus in their own parabolic interpretations of Jesus' parables, and of each other's handlings of the parables, changing and adding their own fictions to the other author's interpretations, ending up with Mark's historical fictions about Jesus, Luke's historical fictions, etc. Fascinating stuff.
Yes, they used Jesus' use of parables, to create their own parables about Jesus. Jesus taught them to use parables, which were fictions to teach with, and created their own fictions about him to teach with.
I think the best way to view the Gospels is "according to", and that goes all the way down to an interpretation of Jesus. So you have Mark's Jesus, Matthew's Jesus, Luke's Jesus, and John's Jesus. Or Mark's Parable or Fiction, Matthew's Parable or Fiction, Luke's Fiction, and John's Fiction. (Again, these are scholarship terms for the literary types, they are not polemical statements intended to put down the beliefs of those who read these through the lens of a premodern literalism).
What I was hoping to get at in this talking about the symbolic meaning of the death and resurrection. I don't see that Paul or any of the Gospel writers intended that to be allegorical, or parabolic. Rather, I see it ultimately as metaphorical in nature, talking about something tangible on one level or another symbolically, even if in the author's mind they understood it literally.
Paul being a mystic, which is correct term for him, is clearly telling of an experience of what he understood as the risen Christ. The language used to describe this is intentionally transcendent, as a means to describe the nature of the experience.
That's what metaphors do. They point to something beyond themselves, something tangible and real through symbolisms, like mapping a constellation out of the vast sea of stars in the night sky. That really isn't an allegory.
While you say he views the "Body" of Christ as the church, and he does, I do not believe when he speaks of the risen Christ he intends the church. He is speaking of a mystical experience of some transcended spirit. He uses the term Spirit of Christ to point to this. That's not the church body of believers. Would you agree with this?
Personally, I don't interpret the meaning of the resurrection literally, as in the reanimation of a dead corpse. Did Paul imagine it did? I don't really think so, as there are indications he viewed the resurrection more spiritually, perhaps a more supraphysical, or "spirit body" sense.
As an example we could speak of the language of "The Presence of God". Literally God's Presence is everywhere at all time, but it is spoken of as "here" or "not here" with our personal experience as the point of reference. It's a "truth" from our perceptions, not the "truth" of itself. It is a metaphor for something experienced as real to us. Make sense?
Last edited:
There is no separating the church from Israel. Jesus both links and separates Israel from the Church. It is not within our power to overcome this separation, but it keeps both of us to the path that leads to the One who comes. The Church too waits for the Messiah she already knows, the messiah who has yet to manifest his glory. Excerpt from Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) 'Many Religions One Covenant'
Lapide makes reference to accounts of resurrection/resuscitation in Hebrew Scripture and the then current Pharisaic belief in resurrection. "Only because they (the apostles) were Jews educated by Pharisees was their solid conviction of resurrection the first step to their later Easter faith. Only because they were Pharisaic Jews was the indispensable foundation of their common confidence that this earthly life, despite all tortures and disappointments, was not meant for meaninglessness and that their master even in death was not deserted by the God of Israel."
As we read the Gospel accounts of the D/R it is difficult to discern what is originally the Hebrew mindset from the later Greek/Hellenistic thought.
Howard Is
Lucky Mud
I suspect the story has its origin in paganism, and relates to the disappearance of the sun during winter solstice in the far northern hemisphere.
There are many stories in the bible which echo stories from other cultures.
Easter is springtime, a ‘rebirth’ festival around the vernal equinox, planting time.
Christmas is three days or so after the solstice. The birth of the light when the sun reappears from ‘under the earth’.
There are many stories in the bible which echo stories from other cultures.
Easter is springtime, a ‘rebirth’ festival around the vernal equinox, planting time.
Christmas is three days or so after the solstice. The birth of the light when the sun reappears from ‘under the earth’.
Shadow Link
Active Member
Can there be an argument of how historical truth would be best? Can there be a view or perspective of having the most wisdom in that?
Neutral Name
Active Member
Such great questions. Others have supposedly risen-Moses, Elijah, Enoch and Mary, mother of Jesus (Catholic belief) all ascended into Heaven. Hercules – Greek Mythology and Adapa – Sumerian Mythology.
The only proof that I am aware of is the Shroud of Turin. The nails of the crucified body on the shroud were in the correct places for a Roman crucifixion. It also has never been proven what the image on the shroud is. It is not paint. So, what is it?
On the other hand, I have personal doubts about the accuracy of Christian doctrine. There are many reasons but I will not upset good Christians by stating my reasons.
The point here which I wish to emphasize is that the resurrection COULD be interpreted as allegorical and be accepted by the mind and reason but the object I believe is to claim exclusivity, superiority and uniqueness over all the other religions - an appeasement of the ego thus ruining chances of peace.
If we all accepted that all the religions were equal I believe peace would be the result but unfortunately ego interferes and beliefs are upheld which I believe to be clearly superstitious.
I believe that it was the resurrection of the body of the Cause of Jesus which was meant as it spread all over the world long after Christ had died.
If we all accepted that all the religions were equal I believe peace would be the result but unfortunately ego interferes and beliefs are upheld which I believe to be clearly superstitious.
I believe that it was the resurrection of the body of the Cause of Jesus which was meant as it spread all over the world long after Christ had died.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Oh, that is no biggie for me. Why not ... I have seen and experience weirder things happening, this is relatively "normal". No doubt at all.
Jesus wanting Christians to evangelize and claiming "all other religions are inferior", this I can never believe
. Walking on water ... why not?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
For: none
Against: literally everything we know about life and death and how it's kind of irreversible once you are past the period where reanimation is possible. 3 days? No. Try a few minutes instead. And it will require assistance. The dead just don't come alive.
I'ld guess in pretty much the same way as beliefs of any other "miracle", like Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse, or splitting the moon in two.
Obviously not.
Just like he didn't magically turn water into wine or how Mohammed never flew on a winged horse.
Or how Hercules didn't fight a 7-headed hydra.
tigrers2019
Member
Yes, as a poster has stated, the shroud pictured through an unknown form of radiation, is powerful evidence of Jesus' physical resurrection.
The core teaching of this Jewish teaching (physical resurrection) is used by the Apostle Paul to show that God's children need not be concerned about the decay and disintegration of our body because the physical resurrection of Christ proved that we live on with Him in His realm.
Today, we recognize that a recreation of our physical body would be a more accurate description of this event rather than a resurrection.
Also, even though the Gospel of Mark was actually written before 40 A.D. [verified by some Koine Greek words no longer used past this date in this Gospel] there are Gnostic embellishment events added concerning the post-resurrection. Even so, the core teaching still is solid.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
For many reasons a mere allegory would not fit.
The curtain being torn and the sun going dark all public
more than 500 eyewitnesses at one point
The unexpected conversion of Paul
A story unlikely to makeup with the first witness being a woman and a woman with a bad reputation no less - Mary Magdalene.
It really happened
If God can intersect real history
then God can intersect your history
Even the switch from the Sabbath of Saturday to Sunday would
take a super epic event to cause and it did.