Modern Christianity and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus - Belief and implications

[Clear]

In considering the doctrinal evolution from ancient Christianity, it’s been discussed :

1) That many modern Christians no longer believe in the eternal bodily resurrection of Jesus or the promise of an eternal resurrection of men (a central doctrine of ancient Christianity).

2) If they do still believe in the resurrection, it is a watered-down version of a bodily resurrection (i.e. only a "symbolic" resurrection, or only a "temporary" rather than an eternal promise.).

3) If they do believe in an eternal, bodily resurrection of Jesus and the faithful, then they no longer consider nor believe in the implications of this doctrine.



Do most Christian denominations still believe in the eternal bodily resurrection of Jesus?

If they still believe this; do they still believe that it is an eternal promise? (rather than a "temporary" promise)

Do you think christians understand the implications of an eternal bodily resurrection and still believe in the implications?




Clear

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Charity, I think that most Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

 

[Clear]

Hi Angellous;

"..I think that most Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ." - Angellous

Angellous, thanks for your comment. I agree with you regarding the initial belief in "the physical or bodily resurrection" and took I that position in discussions of evolution of Christian doctrines. However, the difficulties lay in the details and I found myself agreeing to some extent with those believing many christians do not accept the eternality and implications of these beliefs.


Do you believe that Jesus bodily resurrection (and thus ours) was eternal in it's nature? Or do you think the bodily resurrection of Jesus (and any other resurrected beings) was of a temporary nature? Angellous, do you think most christians understand the implications of an eternal bodily resurrection and still believe in the implications?

clear

vi

 

[ChristineES]

I've always believed in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Jesus body after resurrection was a glorified body-- What that means, I am not 100% sure.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Hi Angellous;



Angellous, thanks for your comment. I agree with you regarding the initial belief in "the bodily resurrection" and took I that position in discussions of evolution of Christian doctrines. However, the difficulties lay in the details and I found myself agreeing to some extent with those believing many christians do not accept the eternality and implications of these beliefs.


Do you believe that Jesus bodily resurrection (and thus ours) was eternal in it's nature? Or do you think the bodily resurrection of Jesus (and any other resurrected beings) was of a temporary nature? Angellous, do you think most christians understand the implications of an eternal bodily resurrection and still believe in the implications?

clear

vi

Well, it depends on what you think those "implications" are.

It seems to me that most Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected bodily never to die again. By "most Christians" I mean Catholics (who believe in church doctrine), LDS, Reformed, mainline evangelical, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Chinese Orthodox, and the Coptic Church.

 

[Runlikethewind]

What are some of the implications that you refer to?

One implication that I can think of is that if there is an eternal bodily resurrection then heaven/the after life must have some kind of spacial component in which bodies could be moved and such.

In any event, I believe it.

 

[Clear]

Angellous

I believe most christians believe that Jesus was resurrected with a physical body made of matter. However, if the physical resurrection of the body is an eternal promise, then the resurrection means that Jesus and all others who have resurrected, still have physical bodies which they will have forever.

Runlikethewind offers another profound implication :

"... if there is an eternal bodily resurrection then heaven/the after life must have some kind of spacial component in which bodies could be moved and such". - runlikethewind

It becomes difficult for some christians to still believe in a material (physical) body of Jesus in a physical place ("heaven"). The "watering down" of doctrines may simply be a tendency to allegorize the resurrection, or allegorize it’s eternal nature (perhaps consider it a "temporary" promise); or allegorize the heavenly abode in order not to believe in the implication of an eternal but material "heaven". The tendency has always been for the "material" to be made "immaterial".

To believe Jesus had a physical body upon returning to the apostles and eating fish with them is one faith. To believe that Jesus still has his resurrected physical body and that his body currently EXISTS in a PLACE is a different faith.

Also, if all individuals who resurrect will have physical bodies forever, then heaven will be populated with physical (though glorified) beings who, presumably, will be in a physical place. The tendency may be to allegorize the physical nature of resurrection and heaven away.


Clear
tz e

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe most christians believe that Jesus was resurrected with a physical body made of matter. However, if the physical resurrection of the body is an eternal promise, then the resurrection means that Jesus and all others who have resurrected, still have physical bodies which they will have forever.

Interesting.

Sounds like a baseless assumption to me.

Do you know of any Christian churches that actually teach this stuff? It looks to me like you're taking what you think Christians believe and contrasting it with what you think is Christianity.

An interesting paradox, to be sure, and one that I suspect is grounded in ignorance.

 

[Clear]

Clear stated - "...if the physical resurrection of the body is an eternal promise, then the resurrection means that Jesus and all others who have resurrected, still have physical bodies which they will have forever."

Angellous - observes - Sounds like a baseless assumption to me....
An interesting paradox, to be sure, and one that I suspect is grounded in ignorance.

Angellous - I can’t be sure from your comment, what parts of an eternal resurrection that you feel are baseless; are a paradox, or are ground in ignorance. Can you explain?

For examples:
Do you feel the physical resurrection itself is baseless?
Do you feel the resurrection is NOT an eternal promise? (but only a temporary promise)
Do you feel that individuals with physical and glorified resurrected bodies have died again, or will die again at some point and lose their resurrected bodies? (i.e. their spirit re-separate from that resurrected body?)
Do you feel that Jesus, having resurrected, has died again (i.e. his spirit left his glorified and resurrected physical body), or some how lost his glorified and resurrected body in some other manner?


I cannot tell what you feel is baseless or paradoxical or ignorant without a better explanation of what you believe is baseless.

Thanks in advance for the added information.

Clear
tz ne

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm not answering for Angellous, just myself.

Do you feel the physical resurrection itself is baseless?

No. Both the (trans)physical resurrection of Jesus and of his followers are taught consistently through Church tradition.

Do you feel the resurrection is NOT an eternal promise? (but only a temporary promise)

I'm not sure what you mean by temporary. Are you asking whether the promise is only extended for a limited time? Or are you asking whether the resurrection body is temporary? Or something else?

Do you feel that individuals with physical and glorified resurrected bodies have died again, or will die again at some point and lose their resurrected bodies? (i.e. their spirit re-separate from that resurrected body?)

At the resurrection, the last enemy, death, is dealt with once for all. Ressurected people will not die. Period.

Do you feel that Jesus, having resurrected, has died again (i.e. his spirit left his glorified and resurrected physical body), or some how lost his glorified and resurrected body in some other manner?

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Tradition holds that Jesus was raised physically from the dead. Following that, he ascended to the Father. Whatever else that means, it DOESN'T mean he died again.

 

[Clear]

Hi Dunemeister

I was trying to encourage Angellous to explain just what it was that he felt was "baseless" and "grounded in ignorance."

In one account, following Christs death, Christ appears to the disciples; tells them not to fear and, seems to indicate his resurrection was physical. For example: In Luke 24 (kjv) Jesus appears and says

"Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (bolding is mine)

It is in this context that I said: "I believe most christians believe that Jesus was resurrected with a physical body made of matter. However, if the physical resurrection of the body is an eternal promise, then the resurrection means that Jesus and all others who have resurrected, still have physical bodies which they will have forever.



Angellous responded to this quote that it: "Sounds like a baseless assumption to me"...."An interesting paradox, to be sure, and one that I suspect is grounded in ignorance. " He disagreed but did not explain his disagreement.


I was not sure if Angellous felt that Jesus was NOT resurrected with a physical body; or if Angellous feels the resurrection of a physical body was only temporary and Jesus would then LOSE his resurrected body (i.e. "die" again), etc. Angellous did not explain just WHAT it was that he felt was a "baseless assumption".




Like you, I do NOT feel the resurrection is baseless; I feel the resurrection was a promise that we would resurrect and live forever with resurrected bodies (e.g. not "temporarily" - i.e. bodies that would not die, nor would our resurrected bodies be taken from us in any other fashion). Since these are the very points I agree with, I am still left wondering what it is specifically that Angellous disagrees with.


I’ll have to wait until he explains what it is that he disagrees with.

Clear.
dr s

 

[Runlikethewind]

Clear,
I've noticed that you seem to use the terms forever and eternity interchangeably. I am not sure that they can be, I think that perhaps making a clarification and distinction between the two could help in a discussion such as this. In my mind forever implies a temporal aspect while eternity does not. Now that may just be me but in any event I think it raises an interesting aspect to this discussion.

On another note, I don't think that a belief in the resurrection of the body implies a resurrection of the same kind of physical material bodies we have here on Earth. In fact I think it implies a different kind of body some kind of glorified, perfected, spiritual body which may alter the way this new body and life in this new body is approached.

PeAcE

 

[Polaris]

Do most Christian denominations still believe in the eternal bodily resurrection of Jesus?

Based on my experience (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I believe that most modern Christians do not believe in the eternal bodily resurrection of Jesus in the sense I think you are implying. Most modern Christians believe in the trinity and that God is a spirit-only being. Therefore they cannot believe that the bodily resurrection of Christ is a permanent or eternal condition. I'm not exactly sure how they view the resurrected state of Christ in an eternal context.

If they still believe this; do they still believe that it is an eternal promise? (rather than a "temporary" promise)

Probably not in the way you are describing.

Do you think christians understand the implications of an eternal bodily resurrection and still believe in the implications?

Not if they claim a belief in an eternal bodily resurrection. The implications are quite clear: if Jesus' bodily resurrection was an eternal condition then that would mean that God indeed has a physical body and that the glorified state of all mankind must include a physical body.

 

[Clear]

”...I've noticed that you seem to use the terms forever and eternity interchangeably.... making a clarification and distinction between the two could help

I agree with you on both the difference in meaning and the difference in usage. I’ll try to be careful how I use the terms.

”... I don't think that a belief in the resurrection of the body implies a resurrection of same kind of physical material bodies we have here on Earth. In fact I think it implies a different kind of body some kind of glorified, perfected, spiritual body which may alter the way this new body and life in this new body is approached.”

I agree that the initial body Jesus resurrected with (that Thomas felt the nail marks in; and thrust his hand into the wound in his chest) will change just as the bodies of the saints who resurrected with Jesus will change to more glorified bodies.

”...Most modern Christians believe in the trinity and that God is a spirit-only being. Therefore they cannot believe that the bodily resurrection of Christ is a permanent or eternal condition. I'm not exactly sure how they view the resurrected state of Christ in an eternal context.

Polaris; I think you are correct. I also do not know how the “three-is-one” doctrine will affect the ultimate, glorified, resurrected body of Jesus. (e.g. will the Father and Holy Ghost also inhabit Jesus resurrected body? Will he have to die again (i.e. lose his resurrected body? ...) I believe in the trinity, but since I do not believe the three in the trinity are the same being (but instead are three individual beings), it does not affect my personal theology in the way it affects those who believe they are the same being.

edit / addition (10-11 at 9:55 am): When I spoke of christians believing in Jesus' resurrection, I was referring to Jesus's post resurrection appearances when he touches them, eats with them, breaks bread, has Thomas feel the nail marks, thrush his hand into his side, etc. Given these indications of a matterial/physical resurrection, (unless one believes Jesus merely "appeared" to have done these things in a belief like Doecism) I think most will believe his resurrection at that time was material / physical. Most non christians and agnostics will also believe this indicates a material body (If the story is true). I also agree with "runlikethewind, that this initial resurrected body will be glorified at some future point. However, I do not believe any resurrected, glorified body will EVER be made of "nothing" as in an "ex-nihilo" creation. I do not believe the early christians believed in creation of "something" from "nothing" (i.e. ex-nihilo creation)



Before discussing the nature of the resurrection, could we discuss the IMPORT of the initial resurrection in Christian theology and see if we agree on this?



THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN RESURRECTION

I believe the physical resurrection of Jesus is the grand central claim of Christianity. The physical resurrection of Jesus is a tangible evidence for both his divine nature and for an Atonement wrought by him. Just as the Resurrection is physical proof of our Lord's divine Sonship, (the outward evidence that he was all he and the prophets said he was), if Jesus did not have the power to rise from the tomb; did not have power to save the body, then he did not have power to save the soul, nor the power to forgive sins. Paul reminds us that “if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

Part of what sets Christianity apart is not simply it’s claim of a Lord God or it’s moral teachings. Many religions share a claim of the existence of a God and similar moral teachings to Christianity. The occurrence of a man who was dead, instilling life back into his own body, never again to suffer separation of his spirit from that body (death) which is a physical reality does set Christianity apart from other religions and this sets Jesus apart from other religious “Messiahs” throughout history.

Though many religions and philosophies teach a continuation of the life principle or spirit after death, few religions, believe the specific Christian doctrine of resurrection of the dead. His physical resurrection serves as a degree of proof that he can do the same for all mankind. The comfort of Israel was the promise of immortality, of resurrection unto immortality: “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." (Isaiah.)

I believe that Athenagoras was correct saying, "Life would be an utter waste without the resurrection. It's the resurrection which gives everything in life its meaning." It also give Christianity important context. Just as one cannot clearly understand the nature of the Atonement without clearly understanding the nature of the Fall of Mankind, one cannot understand the nature of heaven without an understanding of the nature of the Resurrection (which is a critical step to getting there - to heaven)


Would anyone like to add their comments or corrections on the Import of the resurrection?

Clear
drdr tz

 

[Clear]

Since no criticisms or additions were made to the statement regarding the importance of physical resurrection in Christian Theology, I will assume we agree that the doctrine IS of great import.

Can I summarize “where I am going” with this discussion and then start at the beginning and see how far we go before disagreeing?

I believe that varying types of matter is eternal. It has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. I do NOT think many of the ancients were ignorant of this. My belief is that many of the ancients (including many christians) believed that God used matter in creation (or "organization") of the universe. That is, many of them believed that God did not make things “out of nothing” but rather, he made it (organized it) out of matter that has always existed.

For those christians, just as for modern science, matter is part of the framework of the universe. It has always been in the back ground as an eternal resource. If those christians are correct,then God originally organized “things” out of matter (such as planets, stars, the earth, plants, animals, and the bodies of men). He continues to manipulate and use matter while we are in mortality.

If he used matter to create all things with in the “beginning”; and if he uses it during mortality; then I believe they are correct that he will continue to use matter in it’s various forms throughout eternity. He cannot use “nothing”.

If resurrection is part of this eternal process, then resurrection will involve the use of matter in one form or another. Since I cannot tell upon what point Angellous or others might disagree regarding the physical resurrection of our bodies (of which Jesus’ resurrection is the proto-type). Perhaps it is prudent to take smaller “bites” of these early doctrines and see which one makes someone “choke”.

Can we discuss “creation out of nothing” first? (Since if such Christianity is wrong about creation from matter, then it may be mistaken about everything that follows from this doctrine). If Christianity is correct about creation from matter, then all further further logic will flow more naturally to it’s ultimate and unforced conclusion.

Is there anyone who feels that all early Christians believed in Creation from “nothing”? Or are there any comments or corrections anyone would like to make?

Clear
drsene

 

[Heneni]

This might seem hard to understand but adam and eve were made of a different kind of matter than we are. But matter none the less. The garden of eden was made of the same kind of matter. They were pure spirit though that spirit was touchable like the body jesus had when he resurrected.

However when they sinned their spirits became corrupt, and they realised they were naked. Naked meant they had no physical covering for their now corrupted spirit.

So god clothed them and gave them physical bodies. The type we all have. This body of ours is corruptable. When the incorruptable, our spirits puts on the incorruptable body again, we will be like adam and eve when god first created them. They did not actually run around naked, the were just without natural clothing, a body but they had a spiritual garment on, though no less real and touchable.

The type of body jesus resurrected with is an incorruptable body. Still made of matter and can still be touched but is not subject to the laws that govern the natural world. And his type of body could change form, it could ascend into the sky, it could eat without having bowl movements etc. The same type of body that adam and eve had before they were corrupted is the type of body jesus had when he rose from the dead, and its the same type of body we will get at resurrection. It can be touched, but its not subject to the natural laws. It cannot decay. It can change form. At the moment we know that all matter has energy. But the type of spiritual bodies we will get is really energy that can manipulate or even create matter.



Heneni

 

[Runlikethewind]

Can we discuss “creation out of nothing” first? (Since if such Christianity is wrong about creation from matter, then it may be mistaken about everything that follows from this doctrine). If Christianity is correct about creation from matter, then all further further logic will flow more naturally to it’s ultimate and unforced conclusion.

Is there anyone who feels that all early Christians believed in Creation from “nothing”? Or are there any comments or corrections anyone would like to make?

Clear
drsene

I would like to make the point that the question of creation, out of nothing or not, probably had proponents on both sides in the earliest days of the Church. For example, a quick search found that St theophilius of Antioch was arguing for creation out of nothing in the 2nd century, he writes

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.

So I would not say that all Christians initially believed in creation out of nothing nor did all Christians deny it in the very early days of the Church. This question was just one of many that was open for debate.

Having said that, I would argue that the eternal existence of matter is not incompatible with creation out of nothing. God could have created matter to be eternal, the main point being that matter cannot be eternal by its own nature or essence because only God is eternal by nature or essence. So we must avoid making anything, such as matter in this case, equal to God. It does not mean that God cannot create a thing, matter, out of nothing and make its existence, which he created, an eternal existence. Does that make any sense?

What I am trying to say is that I don't think it is a logical contradiction or impossibility to hold simultaneously that matter is eternal and that God created it out of nothing if we look at eternal as a timeless status. If we confuse eternity with forever then matter could not be eternal and created from nothing because there would be a time, before it was created, in which matter did not exist. But if we recognize that eternity is timeless then there would be no question of before because such a statement would be meaningless, there is no before where there is no time.

 

[Clear]

1)

”...This might seem hard to understand but adam and eve were made of a different kind of matter than we are. But matter none the less....” - Heneni

Heneni, thank you for your explanation. It seems you are referring to the early Jewish Adamic history where Adam and Eve’s spirits are initially clothed in bodies of “light” (that is, a “glorified” form of matter) and upon their fall, their spirits become clothed in the less glorified bodies we now have.

Such early histories are not so difficult to understand, though I do not think most Christians are familiar with such early histories and are often “disoriented” by them. I am pleasantly surprised that you are familiar with them.

Philo (in Q.G) agrees with you that "the coat of skin simply means the human body," (in it’s current form...) Some rabbis also agree since the Hebrew word côr may either have the sense "skin of an animal" or "human skin". Johnathan.Z. Smith relates "before their expulsion from Eden, Adam and Eve had bodies or garments of light” which change after the expulsion.

There are similar traditions regarding the bodies of light and skin in Samaritan, Christian, and Gnostic sources. Irenaeus (PG, 7:500-501) discusses it. Tertullian feels the doctrine agreeable to Valentinian doctrines in nature (PL, 2:614, and PL, 2:849) though he himself does not agree with the concept. Origen, (Contra Celsum) agrees "They received garments of skin at the time of the fall," which Ginzberg understands to be "bodies” (though he doesn’t go into the same detail as you.)

Whatever the nature of their initial bodies, I agree with you that their bodies (both pre-and post expulsion from Eden’s garden) were made from a form of matter.




2)

...The type of body jesus resurrected with is an incorruptable body. Still made of matter and can still be touched but is not subject to the laws that govern the natural world....” - Heneni

A) I very much agree with you that all bodies, whether corruptible or incorruptible, are made of matter (though the matter differs in type).

B) I not believe that incorruptible bodies are "not subject to natural laws" (as you put it). I believe all matter is subject to eternal and immutable “natural” physical laws, but that glorified individuals with greater intelligence and power are able to use physical laws unknown to us, and in ways we are not currently aware of nor are able to use ourselves. This is a subject beyond the principle of simply whether God uses matter in creation or not (I am claiming God uses matter in creation of the universe and of bodies)

”...At the moment we know that all matter has energy. But the type of spiritual bodies we will get is really energy that can manipulate or even create matter....- Heneni

Whether a description of glorified bodies can truly be generalized as “energy” only, is a theme beyond my personal ability to discuss intelligently (though I grant that you might be able to..). The simple fact that they are made of a form of matter is something I am sure of.


Clear

 

[Clear]

Having said that, I would argue that the eternal existence of matter is not incompatible with creation out of nothing. God could have created matter to be eternal, the main point being that matter cannot be eternal by its own nature or essence because only God is eternal by nature or essence. So we must avoid making anything, such as matter in this case, equal to God. It does not mean that God cannot create a thing, matter, out of nothing and make its existence, which he created, an eternal existence. Does that make any sense?

runlikethewind, thank you for your comment. You make a great deal of sense. Thank you for being so clear. The following are simply comments on the individual sentences in your quote above.

I would argue that the eternal existence of matter is not incompatible with creation out of nothing.

Firstly, I do not think God is able to create something out of nothing. It is a silly mis-application of omnipotence like claiming “God can annihilate himself into nothing and then re-create himself if he wanted” (Of course he could not do this either...). Making “something out of nothing” makes for poor sense and for poor science and it is just as consistent with Christian doctrine to believe God created all things out of matter as to believe he created all things from "nothing". I believe Theophilus is incorrect in his personal belief, though he touches on a very IMPORTANT REASON that the doctrine of creation from nothing was itself created (ironically) from nothing.

Secondly, If matter is eternal as I believe it is (and which I believe most of the ancients knew and themselves believed), there is no need for God to create out of nothing. It is redundant, inefficient and an illogical type of creation to do so. If matter is sitting before him, a sensible, intelligent and efficient God will use what is already there, rather than to “make” more of the very thing he doesn't need (which is already sitting before him) and then using “that second batch of matter" instead of what is already there. It’s like driving to the store for milk when there is milk already sitting in the fridge.

If God could simply have willed everything into existence "in a flash", he might have done that. It was the fact that matter was involved in creation that required the process of creation to take time and to be done in the logical steps that are described in the various Creation accounts such as in Genesis.

”.... God could have created matter to be eternal, the main point being that matter cannot be eternal by its own nature or essence because only God is eternal by nature or essence....”

I do not agree that God is the only thing that is eternal. I believe that whoever created that arbitrary definition that "only God is eternal" is simply wrong.

There are other things besides God that are eternal. I believe there is substantial data and reasons to believe that matter is also eternal and not subject to arbitrary creation. I also believe that Eternal Moral law is also eternal and not subject to arbitrary creation nor change. There are certain principles which are as eternal as God is and cannot be changed. They are also part of “the way things are”. They are part of the eternal makeup of our universe.

God uses eternal matter to his purposes. He is “Lord” over matter. But it has existed as long as he has.






Both of us are theists with opinions representing both sides of the argument. Perhaps it may help to simply give our reasons for why we believe as we do. (I do NOT intend to argue) runlikethewind. We can simply state our case and leave it there (since this is NOT the debate forum, but rather the comparative forum) Tell me why you hold to the doctrine of “creation from nothing” and I will tell you why I hold to the doctrine of “creation from matter”.

Is this agreeable?


Clear
(drnesie)

P.S. Your statements are really quite understandable and make perfect sense. Thank you for such clarity runlikethewind. I hope I can follow your example in this regard.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Both of us are theists with opinions representing both sides of the argument. Perhaps it may help to simply give our reasons for why we believe as we do. (I do NOT intend to argue) runlikethewind. We can simply state our case and leave it there (since this is NOT the debate forum, but rather the comparative forum) Tell me why you hold to the doctrine of “creation from nothing” and I will tell you why I hold to the doctrine of “creation from matter”.

Is this agreeable?

Perfectly agreeably, may take me some time to formulate a good description of my views though, got a busy day ahead of me today....

Also, I sometimes forget where I am on these forums and mistakenly think I am in the debate thread. I apologize if I became too argumentative.

I like what you said in your last post, especially the stress of creation as a process, totally agree with that concept.