The Resurrection of Jesus: Allegorical Story or Historical Truth?

[Dawnofhope]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

 

[pearl]

According to Pinchas Lapide, in his book 'The Resurrection of Jesus, A Jewish Perspective, the Resurrection was an historical event, 'however much the details of the narrative may be open to objection.' Lapide does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

The 'confession' of faith, the same crucified Jesus lives, is placed within a narrative in which every 'detail' has a symbolic meaning.

The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Paul teaches not the resurrection of physical bodies but the resurrection of 'persons' not the return of 'fleshly' body which Paul describes as impossible.

 

[Augustus]

I've always guessed that it was a response to Jesus dying before the apocalypse. His sacrifice then became seen as something that delayed the eschaton that he had been preaching. A 'spiritual' resurrection perhaps became a bodily one over time.

A bit like the following example:

If belief in human rationality was a scientific theory it would long since have been abandoned. A striking falsification can be found in a classic of social psychology, When Prophecy Fails (1956), a study of a UFO cult in the early 1950s. Written by a team led by Leon Festinger, the psychologist who developed the idea of cognitive dissonance, the book recounts how a Michigan woman claimed to have received messages in automatic writing from alien intelligences on another planet announcing the end of the world, which would be inundated by a great flood in the hours before dawn on 21 December 1954. The woman and her disciples had left their homes, jobs and partners and given away their possessions, in order to be ready for the arrival of a flying saucer that would rescue them from the doomed planet.

For Festinger and his colleagues, this was an opportunity to test the theory of cognitive dissonance. According to the theory, human beings do not deal with conflicting beliefs and perceptions by testing them against facts. They reduce the conflict by reinterpreting facts that challenge the beliefs to which they are most attached. As T. S. Eliot wrote in Burnt Norton, human kind cannot bear very much reality.

In order to test the theory, the psychologists infiltrated themselves into the cult and observed the reaction when the apocalypse failed to occur. Just as the theory predicted, the cultists refused to accept that their system of beliefs was mistaken. Instead, they interpreted the failure of doomsday to arrive as evidence that by waiting and praying throughout the night they had succeeded in preventing it. The confounding of all their expectations only led them to cling more tightly to their faith, and they went on to proselytize for their beliefs all the more fervently.

As Festinger writes, summarizing this process:

"Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong; what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced"

John Gray. The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths

Obviously there is no real evidence for this theory, so it is purely speculative. It is at least plausible though imo.

 

[leov]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

NT says that Christ Jesus appeared only to those who were able to see Christ.

 

[David T]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

Adrian the text has played humanity as fools.

Consciousness is fiction and that is a fact.

You are talkimg about leaves. See the bug. The text plays right here.

Why is the text truth? Its played humanity as fools.

 

[Shadow Link]

In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

How so?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

This is what I gather: The physical resurrection is just as real as eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood. The two things are equally real. As you approach the altar for eucharist you enter heaven where the eucharist is real. Then you descend back to earth. Its something like that, so allegory and metaphor do not capture the concept. The concept may be is that this world is untrue compared with the heaven. The term 'Reality' is not in Greek Koine, but the concept is. You leave this false reality and go to the real one.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Most of us from a Christian background are familiar with the story of how Jesus is crucified and after three days rises from the dead. Over a period of forty days He appears to His disciples and eventually ascends through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven. No atheists will believe this story to be literally true and the majority of Christians believe it is.

All four gospel accounts provide a resurrection narrative. The earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection is St Paul's first letter to Corinth.

Personally, my faith in Christ and the Gospels doesn't require a belief in a literal resurrection and ascension. In fact the Baha'i Faith teaches its an allegorical story.

So what is the evidence for and against either points of view? What are some of the other perspectives as to how this story came to be a core belief of the Christian Faith?

Did Jesus really rise from the dead, appear to His disciples and ascend into heaven?

Just my opinion. I think that one of the purposes of the resurrection was to prove a path to mankind that led from life to death and to life again. Perhaps God did it to help humans to feel more purpose and security?

 

[Dawnofhope]

According to Pinchas Lapide, in his book 'The Resurrection of Jesus, A Jewish Perspective, the Resurrection was an historical event, 'however much the details of the narrative may be open to objection.' Lapide does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.

It’s a curious dichotomy to both believe in the resurrection but deny His being the Messiah.

I was reading in my old friend Wikipedia where Lapide appears to believe The Parousia or Return of Christ may well fulfil the requirements of being the Jewish Messiah.

To conclude, Lapide accepts Jesus as the Messiah of the Gentiles, a position he substantiates more clearly in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Furthermore, he suggests that the return of Jesus in the parousia will show him to be Israel's Messiah.

Pinchas Lapide - Wikipedia

In the same article:

In his dialogue with German reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann, Lapide says:

"On page 139 of his book The Church in the Power of the Spirit (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977) it says: Through his crucifixion Christ has become the Saviour of the Gentiles. But in his parousia he will also manifest himself as Israel's Messiah.

I find this sentence an acceptable formula of reconciliation."

Moltmann's compelling response:

"Christendom can gain salvation only together with Israel. The Christians will one day be asked, Where are your Jewish brothers and sisters? The church will one day be asked, Where have you left Israel? For the sake of the Jew Jesus there is no ultimate separation between church and Israel. For the sake of the gospel there is provisionally, before the eschatological future, also no fusion. But there is the communal way of the hoping ones."

Perhaps there is only one way to establish Messianic claims and that is to walk as brothers and sisters alongside those who we wish to proclaim to. The irony is that as soon as we proclaim or proclaim too loudly, the walk may cease. For now it is enough to have fellowship and communion of sorts with those of a different faith without some of the agendas that have permeated the Christian-Jewish dialogue.

 

[sojourner]

I believe Jesus was resurrected. There's no historical or scientific fact to back that up. But I believe in spiritual reality that transcends what we perceive as "reality," and that it's this spiritual reality in which resurrection takes form. Call it metaphor, call it a theological position -- call it what you will. But that which is truth also transcends just what is factual. Truth depends on fact; it also depends on how we make meaning of our world.

 

[Ellen Brown]

It’s a curious dichotomy to both believe in the resurrection but deny His being the Messiah.

I was reading in my old friend Wikipedia where Lapide appears to believe The Parousia or Return of Christ may well fulfil the requirements of being the Jewish Messiah.

To conclude, Lapide accepts Jesus as the Messiah of the Gentiles, a position he substantiates more clearly in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective. Furthermore, he suggests that the return of Jesus in the parousia will show him to be Israel's Messiah.

Pinchas Lapide - Wikipedia

In the same article:

In his dialogue with German reformed theologian Jürgen Moltmann, Lapide says:

"On page 139 of his book The Church in the Power of the Spirit (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977) it says: Through his crucifixion Christ has become the Saviour of the Gentiles. But in his parousia he will also manifest himself as Israel's Messiah.

I find this sentence an acceptable formula of reconciliation."

Moltmann's compelling response:

"Christendom can gain salvation only together with Israel. The Christians will one day be asked, Where are your Jewish brothers and sisters? The church will one day be asked, Where have you left Israel? For the sake of the Jew Jesus there is no ultimate separation between church and Israel. For the sake of the gospel there is provisionally, before the eschatological future, also no fusion. But there is the communal way of the hoping ones."

Perhaps there is only one way to establish Messianic claims and that is to walk as brothers and sisters alongside those who we wish to proclaim to. The irony is that as soon as we proclaim or proclaim too loudly, the walk may cease. For now it is enough to have fellowship and communion of sorts with those of a different faith without some of the agendas that have permeated the Christian-Jewish dialogue.

My largest indictment against religious folk, to include Muslims and Jews, not just Christians is that there are those who think their belief entitles them to feel and act superior to others. As long as there is that sentiment they have misunderstood.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe Jesus was resurrected. There's no historical or scientific fact to back that up. But I believe in spiritual reality that transcends what we perceive as "reality," and that it's this spiritual reality in which resurrection takes form. Call it metaphor, call it a theological position -- call it what you will. But that which is truth also transcends just what is factual. Truth depends on fact; it also depends on how we make meaning of our world.

Its good you acknowledge the lack of historic and scientific evidence to support your belief. I've seen Christians insist there is and that just takes them down a rabbit hole.

For me the most important part of Jesus is how He transforms the reality of our lives spiritually. The fact is He was a man who walked amongst us and the power of His Life and Teachings remains with us today, nearly two thousand years after His Ministry.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How so?

Jesus Christ, Resurrection of

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is what I gather: The physical resurrection is just as real as eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood. The two things are equally real. As you approach the altar for eucharist you enter heaven where the eucharist is real. Then you descend back to earth. Its something like that, so allegory and metaphor do not capture the concept. The concept may be is that this world is untrue compared with the heaven. The term 'Reality' is not in Greek Koine, but the concept is. You leave this false reality and go to the real one.

Eating flesh and drinking blood sounds symbolic to me (Matthew 26:26) unless you are literally eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood, which would be impossible. I can understand the experience of communion and encountering Jesus being real but once again we are not talking about a literal reality as if you and I were to encounter each other in the flesh. I wonder if the way some Christians use language to describe their experiences creates barriers and confusion?

 

[Dawnofhope]

My largest indictment against religious folk, to include Muslims and Jews, not just Christians is that there are those who think their belief entitles them to feel and act superior to others. As long as there is that sentiment they have misunderstood.

This is probably the most important point. The resurrection belief is a belief like other religious beliefs but can be part of a theology where one religion is seen as superior to others. The Muslims do it with Muhammad being the final prophet for all times. Some practitioners from all religions can fall prey to this trap to some extent. We're all human after all.

 

[Sapiens]

NT says that Christ Jesus appeared only to those who were able to see Christ.

The very definition of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Dawnofhope]

NT says that Christ Jesus appeared only to those who were able to see Christ.

Do you have any scripture to support your statement?

 

[Ellen Brown]

This is probably the most important point. The resurrection belief is a belief like other religious beliefs but can be part of a theology where one religion is seen as superior to others. The Muslims do it with Muhammad being the final prophet for all times. Some practitioners from all religions can fall prey to this trap to some extent. We're all human after all.

Mormons believe that the President of their Church is a living Prophet, and that his words can overrule the Bible. They are free to practice that.

Biblical beliefs, in my mind have levels of proof. As far as I am concerned, anything I believe about religion is MY belief and does not need proof that will stand up in a court of law. I think that religious folk are sold a huge deception in that most have the idea that if they can force, brainwash, cajole, or threaten others to their beliefs then they have more credibility. That is the big lie.

Mostly we crow about freedom of religion, but are unwilling to give what we want to others.

 

[leov]

Do you have any scripture to support your statement?

Acts 10:
40-41

 

[Dawnofhope]

Acts 10:
40-41

Acts of the Apostles 10:40-41

This provides weight to the argument He didn't literally come back to life, otherwise anyone could have seen him. That along with the delayed recognition, even for His closest disciples and His tendency to move through solid objects supports something other than a physical bodily resurrection.