Parchment and Pen » Quick Question for You

Quick Question for You

If you were able to go back in a time machine and witness the tomb of Christ only to find that Christ did not raise from the grave, what would that do to your Christian faith?

Fill out the poll on the right in addition to your answer here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

138 Responses to “Quick Question for You”

iMark on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:17 pm #

If you asked after I went back in time I would probably reply,”What faith?”
Will Adair on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:23 pm #

Instantly become the greatest hedonist, narcist, jerk the world has ever seen.
RazorsKiss on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:27 pm #

This reminds me of a debate I had recently. My opponent asked me the question – “What if God is lying to you?”

My answer was that it is impossible for God to lie. He tried every way he knew how to get me to admit it was *possible* – hypothetically.

God determines possibility. It just ain’t happenin. God lying about His Son’s crucifixion and resurrection just isn’t possible.
Jerry on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:36 pm #

If Christ is not risen from the dead then our faith is in vain and we are still in our sins.
kisanri on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:37 pm #

I would hurry out and buy “you best life now”
Kevin Bullock on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:42 pm #

I would use my time machine to manipulate the financial markets and political systems of the world to make myself emperor. ….and get a tattoo.
shannon on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:44 pm #

We have no hope aside from the resurrection. It is the hinge of the Christian faith, w/o it our belief is broken. Who wants to believe in a liar?
Chris Gallagher on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:45 pm #

My “Christian faith” would be shattered, because “Christian faith” relies on the death, burial and rising of Christ from the grave. Without His rising, the gospel is not a gospel, i.e. – the good news was never good news.

I would probably become Jewish after crying and wailing for days. There would have to be something that was true and my mind would search and hope (confident expectation) to find the truth of the finality of this life.

Without the rising of Jesus, the New Testament breaks at its core, but the Old Testament woule still be pointing to a Messiah. Like I said, after some thoughts, tears and deliberation, I would probably become a Jew.

Just my thoughts.
Carrie on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:47 pm #

My faith would be gone…

eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die…
Steve on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:48 pm #

He didn’t ask “if Christ is not risen from the dead” – he asked if his body were not raised. I’d like to ask the faith abandoners, do you not believe that you have encountered the risen Christ? If you do, does this belief rely solely on another belief (the physical resurrection) taken without proof and not much evidence? Why?
Gammell on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:51 pm #

I’d probably convert to a form of deistic humanist confucianism. I greatly doubt my heart would be in it though.
Gammell on 03 Dec 2009 at 11:58 pm #

He didn’t ask “if Christ is not risen from the dead” – he asked if his body were not raised.

It seems to me that such a distinction would be nonsense to the NT writers. If He was not bodily raised from the dead, then the NT is wrong on its fundamental point and can be discarded as a meaningful interpretation of what we have personally encountered in our own lives.
Steve on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:12 am #

Gammell,

There are a lot more definite irresolvable problems with the NT than the issue of Christ’s resurrection; if it’s wrong in one way, it’s subject to being wrong in other places. The NT writers, as noted by modern scholarship, were not quite as sure about the physicality of Christ’s resurrection.

Regardless, I don’t think using a non-inerrant Bible (which is still the testimony of actual people in history) to help me make sense of the experiences of countless believers for the last two millennia is even a tiny bit more of a leap than believing in the face of evidence to the contrary that the NT is perfectly inerrant.
Michael T on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:14 am #

I agree with most of the people here. No bodily resurrection, No Christianity. I would either eat, drink and be merry (mostly to avoid thinking about the meaningless of life), or lose myself in the meaningless of life and, well we won’t go there.

As much as I disagree with Greg Boyd on some of his theology (I always have to put this preface in here lest I get flamed for bringing up his name – it has happened before) I think his discussion in Letter From a Skeptic is dead on we he talks about humans having a innate desire for things like meaning and purpose which the naturalistic explanations of the universe cannot provide. He states that if the naturalistic explanations are true and there is no God, no purpose, no meaning, and no morality then human beings are like fish in need of water, except that in our universe there never was such a thing as water.
Edwin on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:21 am #

The ressurection is what gave Jesus the carpenter, the name of Christ, the mesiah, the redeemer… Kisanri’s answer, Very funny… Michael has something under his sleeve with this question, after some thought, the only thing I can think of is the apostle Paul’s reference to our own resurrection as “born again” if we can go back in time and find that our rebirth was not genuine, real, what would we do?…
Soli Deo Gloria
Chad on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:05 am #

Paul says are faith would be busted… so I’m going with that.
Roger on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:13 am #

As Paul said, if there was no resurrection then Christ has not been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then our faith is futile and we are still in our sins and we are of all people to be most pitied.

1 Cor 15
cherylu on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:15 am #

My answer would have to be the same as those that have already said that Jesus’ resurrection is central to my faith. I Cor 15 says, as somone already noted, that if He is not raised, I (and all of you too!) are still in our sins, and our faith is vain.
Gammell on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:20 am #

Steve,

My point regarding the value of the NT without a bodily resurrection does not require inerrancy. It does, however, rest on two propositions:
1) The NT writers were convinced of a bodily resurrection.
2) This resurrection was fundamental to their understanding and purpose.

As to the first, I am not familiar with any scholarship that concludes the NT writers were not convinced of a bodily resurrection that does not unfairly impose external perspectives (e.g. gnostic or egyptian) on their ancient jewish worldview. If there is such scholarship without those impositions I would be very interested as to how it stacks up against the work of N. T. Wright.

As to the second, the lack of a resurrection would not merely cast doubts on the credibility of the rest of the NT but would tear out its heart. Without the resurrection the Gospels become stories that go nowhere, Acts loses all impetus, Paul would tell you forget his epistles, and Revelation becomes a bizarre and vain fantasy. There would be scraps of value to scavenge, but most of the NT would fade to mere fable.
whoschad on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:21 am #

I would cease becoming a Christian and start sinning a lot more.
Ryft Braeloch on 04 Dec 2009 at 2:55 am #

I must side with RazorsKiss on this one, in so far as the question is self-stultifying because it predicates a falsehood while simultaneously denying the reality of truth (the inerrant Word of God being the ground of metaphysics and epistemology). If there is no such thing as truth, then there is no such thing as falsehood. Such is the unintelligible nonsense at the event horizon of Nihilism. I could not vote on your poll because this option was not provided.
Jason C on 04 Dec 2009 at 2:56 am #

I would not be able to call myself a Christian, because a Christian (among other things) accepts the truth of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

However with a time machine I could always travel back and get the winning Lotto tickets so I wouldn’t be too unhappy.

I’d probably follow Chris and become a Jew. I know some nice Jewish people.
Dave on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:16 am #

I would still be a theist on the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. I would investigate whether or not God has revealed himself in human history. I would start by living by a fusion of the Noahide Covenant and therapeutic moralism while trying to figure out what to make of the OT now that the NT is no longer in the picture. It would also be time to reread Aristotle.
'Mash on 04 Dec 2009 at 5:26 am #

I would spend the rest of my days investigating just how the New Testament could have been written by authors fully knowing it is all false. I would interview Paul and the Disciples and ask them why they are writing lies which they would be more then willing die for. Not only that but quite how they could be so passionate about such an anti-climax and build a complete world-view around completely nothing.

After that I would probably write a PhD on “Collective Sychosomatic Behavior and Global-historical-spanning connected Neurosis,” do a two year long lecture tour and then quite possibly commit suicide from depression.
rick on 04 Dec 2009 at 6:34 am #

i’d say your machine is broke …
Eric S. Mueller on 04 Dec 2009 at 7:05 am #

I’d be more likely to write the publisher of my “Time Traveler’s Guide to Ancient Jerusalem” to make SURE they had the correct tomb.

I fail to imagine how the events in the church of the last 2000 years could be accounted for if it was all based on a lie.
JoanieD on 04 Dec 2009 at 7:52 am #

Wow, it is a little surprising that some folks say that if Jesus was not resurrected, they would start sinning. So does that mean than you would also believe there is no Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is not within you conforming you to the mind of Christ? Does that mean that you would not then care if you hurt people?

I DO believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I believe the New Testament writers believed so too and believed that it was all-important. YET…if they were wrong, I would STILL believe that Jesus was God made flesh and that what he told us was true. And that included the fact that what we do matters and that we are to love God, love ourselves, love others. So we would still conduct our lives with love. And we STILL would be with Jesus forever after this life ended, in some fashion, even if it was not in a physically resurrected body.

Happily, Michael’s scenario is only a fantasy anyway, so we can all sleep peacefully tonight!
Chris Gallagher on 04 Dec 2009 at 7:53 am #

Regarding the “bodily resurrection:”

I would ventured to say that Paul defines the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff as the death, burial, resurrection and others seeing Jesus. Without the viewing the the rising body of Christ, there is no complete gospel.

There would be no ascension without the risen body of Jesus. What did the apostles see in Acts 1? If Acts 1 is false, then how accountantable is Luke, then the rest of the gospels.

Just my thoughts,

Chris
Dale on 04 Dec 2009 at 8:11 am #

If I found out that there was no bodily resurrection of Christ I would abandon Christianity. I find almost no value in organizations that promote like mindsets and actions if those mindsets and actions are not based on objective truth. The resurrection is the window to the supernatural realm from which this objective truth pours.

I would embrace naturalism. I would do only that which profits me tempered by the appearance of unselfishness because in the long run that would profit me as well. I wouldn’t care about any form of evil because in a materialistic, deterministic world there is nothing that is really wrong, only that which is useful or not useful to me. While I wouldn’t kill or rape anyone I would have no choice to not care if it happed except for how the impact of rape and murder affect society and, ultimately, my well being and comfort. I’d go get drunk and laid. Not necessarily in that order.

Thank God for Christ because that would be a crappy world to live in.
Kurt on 04 Dec 2009 at 8:27 am #

If it were conclusively proven (although I don’t believe that it can be), my faith would be shattered. If Christ died not in vain, then I am still in my sins.

For my alternative, I would probably embrace Judaism. After all, the Old Testament is still valid, and the Messiah has yet to come, right?
Kurt on 04 Dec 2009 at 8:28 am #

Bleah, early morning post. I meant to say “If Christ be not raised from the dead” then I’m still in my sins, and my faith is in vain.
Dale on 04 Dec 2009 at 8:31 am #

Wow, it is a little surprising that some folks say that if Jesus was not resurrected, they would start sinning.

Not really. For many belief in sin is tied to belief in the supernatrual, specifically God and his moral truth. Without this there is no moral truth, sin is no longer sin. There is only what is and isn’t.
Cadis on 04 Dec 2009 at 8:47 am #

I would not only abandon Christianity but I would be utterly hopless. If God in the flesh could not reverse the sting of death and seperation from God then I have no hope to ever accomplish what God himself could not do. I would be of all men most miserable..there would be nothing left but to die in our sins..Yes, I would sin to the utmost. Why not? That Christ was resurrected is our proof that our sins are forgiven.
Dr_Mike on 04 Dec 2009 at 8:49 am #

Well, after visiting the smelly tomb (cf Jn 11.39), I’d set the Way-Back Machine for a decade earlier, grab Jesus, and go back even further to see what life in the Garden was like. Then I’d kill every talking reptile I could find. And a lot of non-talking reptiles, too.

I think Jesus would be cool to hang out with, resurrection or no. And without the Fall, his resurrection wouldn’t matter so we could just walk around and play tricks on people.
Scott F on 04 Dec 2009 at 9:07 am #

I have to say as a resident atheist that living a decent life – sins and all – is not such a hard thing to do. I guess I do not approach the supernatural avoidance of sin that some here imply comes with Jesus’ Resurrection plus the whole Holy Spirit thing but I am still motivated by human compassion, love, and a thirst for justice. The glass is still half full.

And I don’t have a tattoo!
Cadis on 04 Dec 2009 at 10:29 am #

Scott F,

I can’t speak for anyone but me… I was not so much trying to imply that the resurrection of Christ was a motivator for the avoidance of sin, but that the resurrection of Christ is what finally says..ahhh there is peace between God and me, he did it! and for me! without that, I might as well live as if there is no tommorrow, and live to myself and for myself. It would be all that I would have..this life only. I’m sure I would not totally loose compassion or caring for others, society would alienate me for that (that would be no fun) but in my heart there would be nothing beyond me and a few years with some other people who would go to dust as well and always the uncertainty that maybe I would meet a God after my death who I had rejected. I find that thought unsettling and hopless
Joshua Allen on 04 Dec 2009 at 10:30 am #

I already know that He rose from the grave, because I have a lifetime of accumulated experiential evidence.

There could be an unlimited number of explanations for a single isolated “time machine” incident, given that we don’t have a long history with such technology. It would be imprudent to dismiss the new “evidence” out of hand, but it would also be imprudent to negate one’s entire accumulated store of life experience based on a single incident which could turn out to have many different interpretations.

I’m reminded of the one or two Christian biologists in the 60s who were “stunned” into committing suicide when they became convinced that Darwin’s theory had merit. Today, such a reaction seems ridiculous. Perhaps one could admire their stocism back in those days, but today they just seem stupid and volatile.

The idea that there could only be two types of reactions to new evidence: “blind faith/denial” or “dejected loss of faith”, ignores the fact that Christianity has *always* consisted of many things which don’t have easy explanations and which Christians are comfortable not understanding.

It feels like you’re trying to contrive a scenario to illustrate Flew’s “falsifiability” argument. But I think you’re just demonstrating the limitations of his argument.
Dale on 04 Dec 2009 at 11:05 am #

Joshua,
For me the problem isn’t the existence of accumulated experiential evidence, it is what makes that evidence valid as evidence. Thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions) of people have experiential evidence that proves to them that their religion is true. Muslims, Hindus, etc. claim their religion is true and many base this on their experience. The resurrection is the event that says “this one is true.” Without it I would have to believe that my experiences were nothing more than sentimental notions based cultural beliefs that were passed down to me over time.
Daniel Goepfrich on 04 Dec 2009 at 11:14 am #

Fact is, as others have said, without the resurrection our faith is in vain, we are still in our sins, and we are of all people to be most pitied.

For me, if Christ were never resurrected, I would probably end up – still in my sins – giving Paul a run for his money as “the chief of sinners”.
Joshua Allen on 04 Dec 2009 at 11:19 am #

I would also caution against a reading of 1 Corinthians 15:14 (“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”) which puts words into Paul’s mouth and makes it seem as if he is making belief in Christ’s divinity as being contingent on a “sober a judicious evaluation of the historical evidence”.

This doesn’t describe Paul’s conversion at all. Paul did not convert to Christianity because he evaluated the evidence and determined the resurrection to be plausible. Paul considered the resurrection plausible because he had a direct encounter with God.

Romans 8:38-40 is instructive. Paul does not say, “I am convinced that nothing except new evidence overturning the testimony of Christ’s resurrection…”. And lest this verse be construed as an example of Flew’s contrived argument about “blind belief”, also note that Paul did not say “I insist on believing”, where belief would be an act of stubborn will. He says, “I am convinced”, which points to an external source of persuasion based in personal experience.
Cornelius on 04 Dec 2009 at 11:24 am #

That would make Christ a liar and he surely wouldn’t be God. Therefore, my life wouldn’t be worth living because there would be no hope stored up for me. There would be no escape for me to go to heaven. I would be eternally separated from the God because I wouldn’t be seen as perfect through Jesus Christ. There would be no forgiveness, no words that I can say to plead my cause, no act of worship that I could pay for peace. The wrath of God would be on my shoulders. Life wouldn’t be worth living without Jesus Christ as God. I would surely die by my own hands rather than to inflict the pain and suffering of my sin on a righteous and Holy God.

There is no hope or peace in God without Jesus Christ, a risen savior who kept his word even to death and to rise again. I would have no Christian Faith.
Eclectic Christian on 04 Dec 2009 at 11:29 am #

JoanieD writes:

I DO believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and I believe the New Testament writers believed so too and believed that it was all-important. YET…if they were wrong, I would STILL believe that Jesus was God made flesh and that what he told us was true. And that included the fact that what we do matters and that we are to love God, love ourselves, love others. So we would still conduct our lives with love. And we STILL would be with Jesus forever after this life ended, in some fashion, even if it was not in a physically resurrected body.

I am 100% with Joanie on this one. The Bible tells us that God took on human flesh. He could have just as easily let that human flesh dissolve into the ground, and had only a spiritual resurrection. Christ is redeemer, because he was God himself, taking our punishment on the cross. If Jesus as God, could die, could not he also let his flesh return to the dust as well? I agree that he did not do so, but for me the resurrection is not nearly as important as the death itself.

I am quite dismayed, that Christ’s sinless life, and death on the cross, means so little to so many of you, that you would turn your back on Christ if God had chosen not to resurrect him. All? of the other world religions follow a non-resurrected leader, and the fact of a non resurrection does not impact their faith.

That is why I voted “It would have significant effect, but I would press on in my Christianity”.

By the way I also agree with JoannieD that:

Happily, Michael’s scenario is only a fantasy anyway, so we can all sleep peacefully tonight!
Dave Z on 04 Dec 2009 at 11:34 am #

Along with the other Dave, I’d still have faith in the Being that created the universe and kick-started life, in part because naturalistic explanations just don’t cut it and in part because I have experienced that Being’s power at work in my life. But I don’t see how my faith could be specifically Christian. As iMark said, “What faith?”
Jim on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:00 pm #

Convert to orthodox Judaism, move to the Holy Land, and wait for the Messiah.
Wm Tanksley on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:26 pm #

Yes, no more Christianity for me; but I wouldn’t just “party on down”, either. After all, the same problems are still present as before; I just picked the wrong solution to them. I’d become an atheist temporarily, and use the time machine to find a better solution. If none other appeared, and I still had lifespan left, I’d spend a few minutes making a billion dollars on the stock market, and settle down for a comfortable life of public philanthropy and private misanthropy.
Dale on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:31 pm #

I am quite dismayed, that Christ’s sinless life, and death on the cross, means so little to so many of you, that you would turn your back on Christ if God had chosen not to resurrect him. All? of the other world religions follow a non-resurrected leader, and the fact of a non resurrection does not impact their faith.

A Jesus who was not resurrected isn’t a Christ, he is a Jewish dude from Palestine that created a cult following that turned into a worldwide movement. He’s a bigger John Lennon. The things he said about himself would be lies and he wouldn’t be worth following. We would have no basis to believe that he led a sinless life. It isn’t about whether or not God chose to resurrect him. The OT predicts that God would resurrect him. It is the resurrection which says to us “this is the guy I was telling you about; this is the one who can sit at my right hand” Without the resurrection he isn’t the atonement for our sins, he isn’t sitting at the right hand of the Father, he isn’t the one who sent the Holy Spirit. There would be no justification, propitiation, sanctification. Without the resurrection Jesus is nothing.

The Christian understanding and interpretation of the OT is guided by NT revelation. It is Christ being able to point back at the OT and say, “That is me” and be believable. After his death the disciples had no direction. They had no reason to believe any of the things Christ said about himself. They were going back to fishing. When he “walked” into the room the full impact of his deity and revelation were felt.

Without a resurrected Christ we are trapped in legalism and bloody sacrifices if we even still believe in the God of Israel

All? of the other world religions follow a non-resurrected leader, and the fact of a non resurrection does not impact their faith.

Which is what makes them pointless. Like you I am dismayed. But I’m dismayed that many Christians view Christ’s resurrection as non-essential to the Christian faith. Without it there is no Christian faith. Not one that is worth any more than any of the other world religions anyway.
Joshua Allen on 04 Dec 2009 at 12:46 pm #

@Dale – But you didn’t experience the resurrection, did you? And there are literally hundreds of millions of people who will testify that it didn’t happen. Therefore, your belief in the resurrection is already contingent on your interpretation of your own personal experiences and the testimony of a small handful of others.

You are essentially saying that your own life experiences, which you witnessed firsthand, are suspect and open to revision unless you maintain a level of certainty about a miraculously improbable event that is reported to have happened 2,000 years ago. That turns Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 15 upside-down.
Dale on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:02 pm #

You are essentially saying that your own life experiences, which you witnessed firsthand, are suspect and open to revision unless you maintain a level of certainty about a miraculously improbable event that is reported to have happened 2,000 years ago. That turns Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 15 upside-down.

I won’t say that is exactly right but that is pretty darn close. And I don’t see how that turns 1 Cor 15 upside down. It seems to verify 1 Cor 15.

I’d like to add here that I think we are approaching a topic from two non-existent points of view. The fact is that Christ rose from the dead and our experiences are relevant. These things go together and can’t be separated. This thought experiment tries to partition these ideas and if forces us to retreat to other means by which we find truth aside from revelation, i.e. empiricism vs. rationalism, based on our personality.
#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:22 pm #

Nope, wouldn’t make a difference to me. I’d argue that Christ is still to be raised, just not yet. I’d also argue that He is with me in Spirit just as He is now (i.e., I’m joined to Him spiritually through God the Spirit).

regards,
#John
Joshua Allen on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:46 pm #

@Dale

But I’m dismayed that many Christians view Christ’s resurrection as non-essential to the Christian faith.

Yes! I would go so far as to say that someone who regards the resurrection as non-essential is, by definition, not a Christian.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:14, what Paul was doing is very similar to what C.S. Lewis was doing in his famous “trilemma” [1], stating that Christ was either God or else a lunatic, but not anything in-between. Like Lewis’s trilemma, Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:14 is utterly devastating to the people who want to believe in some in-between Christianity. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:14 is why I have always regarded the popularization of “Pascal’s Wager” [2] to be absurd. The “wager” says “If you believe in Christ and turn out to have been wrong, at least you will have lived a healthy, fruitful, and rewarding temporal life.” Paul rejects that idea entirely, saying, “If you believe in Christ and turn out to have been wrong, you’ll be proven to have been a pitiable lunatic who wasted his life for nothing”

This is a very strong statement, and one that far too many Christians seem to want to ignore. It is essentially the personalized form of Lewis’s trilemma. Just as Christ was either a lunatic or God, and nothing in-between; we who follow Him are either lunatics or right, and nothing in-between.

Note that neither Lewis nor Paul are making their belief in Christ’s divinity contingent on the stated facts. They are doing the opposite; by placing the belief in stark light and illustrating why there can be no middle ground. Lewis doesn’t bother trying to prove that Christ was not a lunatic. In fact, he argues that lunacy is the only logical thing to assume if you’re not a Christian. Likewise, Paul is not saying that the resurrection “proves” that Christians are not lunatics. He is saying that only a lunatic would be a Christian and simultaneously entertain the idea that there was no resurrection. Since we know that Christ is God, and since we’re not lunatics, this cements our certainty about the resurrection — just as it did for Paul, who did not believe in the resurrection prior to his encounter with God.

It would be nonsensical to ask Lewis, “If you went back in a time machine and did a psychological evaluation of Christ and found him to be a lunatic, what would that do to your faith?” Lewis’s belief in Christ’s divinity does not proceed from or rest on Lewis’s “judicial and sober estimate of Christ’s mental stability”. Nor should our belief in Christ’s divinity proceed from or rest on our convictions about the historicity of the resurrection. Rather, our certainty about Christ’s sanity and resurrection proceed from our faith, knowledge, and experience of God.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis’s_trilemma
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal’s_wager
RazorsKiss on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:54 pm #

Ryft: good to see you, dude. ltns.

This is where evidential apologetics driving theology gets us.

“Anything is possible” just isn’t possible.
Cadis on 04 Dec 2009 at 1:58 pm #

#John in your comment #48
I know you like to argue ( in the formal sense) but you realize you would be arguing against the gospel accounts? I assumed we had a round trip ticket and if that is the case, that we’ve been there and back, then you would be arguing against the testimony of the others who saw Christ after his resurrection.
This is getting messy.
Mike on 04 Dec 2009 at 2:01 pm #

I read the bones as a hoax, like evolution. God’s Word is the definition of truth. Christ did rise from the dead. The physical evidence is wrong.
Eclectic Christian on 04 Dec 2009 at 2:35 pm #

I agree with Joshua Allen’s statement above that: “someone who regards the resurrection as non-essential is, by definition, not a Christian.”

It is essential because it happened. Had it not happened, then Christianity would look very different, and the creeds would not have included it as one of their central tenants.

Let me use a more simple hypothetical example. We believe that Christ rose on the third day, because that is what happened. If God has chosen to raise him on the fourth day, we would be believing that instead.
Rey Reynoso on 04 Dec 2009 at 2:47 pm #

If it could be conclusively, definitely proven, even to my own eyes which have traveled back in time, that Christ is dead, that he never rose from the dead then I don’t know what I’ve been preaching or even why I believe anything about any future hope.

It would be over.

I’d count my previous belief the most abject stupidity that has ever been believed.

Not only would I not bother believing anything else, I’d embrace Nietzsche.
EricW on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:05 pm #

If you were able to go back in a time machine and witness the tomb of Christ only to find that Christ did not raise from the grave, what would that do to your Christian faith?

“Christ did not raise” what? You omitted the object of the transitive verb.
Joshua Allen on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:15 pm #

@Dale

I’d like to add here that I think we are approaching a topic from two non-existent points of view

Yes, this reminds me of the hilarious recurring skit in the movie, “The Princess Bride”, where Vizzini has the habit of exclaiming, “Inconceivable!” whenever something that is merely improbable occurs. Inigo Montoya replies, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means”

Your comment highlights an important point. If someone were to transport you by time machine and show you Christ’s bones in the tomb as proof that the resurrection were a lie, this would be one of the very few cases where an exclamation of “Inconceivable!” would be semantically appropriate. Whatever the time machine evidence could be showing, it is not conceivable that it could be falsifying the resurrection, because we know the resurrection to be true. There would have to be some other explanation.
cherylu on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:20 pm #

I really don’t see either how some of you can say that it wouldn’t matter to you if He was raised or not. Obviously to Paul, it mattered a whole lot!! Without His resurrection we are still in our sins.

And some of you have said that you would still have the Holy Spirit. But did you ever stop to think that before the resurrection no one had the Holy Spirit as we do now? He was with the Old Testament Christians and sometimes came upon them for specific things, but He did not indwell them as He does us. That is something that happened only post resurrection. And actually, Paul also says that if we don’t have the Spirit, we don’t belong to Him.

So, without the resurrection, there is no Christian faith as we know it at all.
Dale on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:42 pm #

I agree with Joshua Allen’s statement above that: “someone who regards the resurrection as non-essential is, by definition, not a Christian.”

I think I will have to split hares (carrot anyone) with both of you here.

If the resurrection happened then Christ’s atoning work occured regardless if we believe the resurrection happened. The resurrection of Christ is foundational to the truth of Christianity but could one beleive on Christ for one’s salvation but not believe in the resurrection? I could claim to not believe in representative democracy but still garner the benefits of it. I can claim that my wife does not love me and truly believe it but still benefit from her love for me.

I know a few people who defend their Christianity tooth and nail who don’t believe in the resurrection. They believe in the power of Christ in their life though. I find it odd myself.

hmmm..Must read Bible
#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:59 pm #

Re post 56

I thought it was obvious: “raise bread” of course. It was a reference by CMP to the bread used at the last supper. Was it leavened or unleavened?

Re Christ not risen

Note that I used the word “yet”. Christ’s resurrection is promised, but the timing is not promised. Even the “three days” prophecy is not conclusive because a day is as a thousand years with God. So if there was a body in the tomb, I would conclude that God has yet to fulfill his promise to raise Christ, and I would remain certain that God will eventually raise Christ as the first fruits (i.e., before the rest of us), and that possible the “three days” means 3,000 years and Christ will rise in the year 3,032 A.D. In the meantime, we are baptized into his death and raised into the promise of Christ’s coming resurrection. The Holy Spirit is given to us now as a foretaste of what will come, as part of the already / not yet of God’s coming kingdom.

Sure, if Christ is never raised then my faith will have been in vain, but no one can say that Christ was not raised until time is over (i.e., our sun supernovas).

So, no, I don’t think it would be impossible at all to remain a Christian even if I were to see Christ’s bones. One also cannot push the hypothetical too hard. Would Paul have preached and written the same way had there been bones in the Tomb? He still would have experienced the bright light and Christ’s voice, and so would have written of Christ’s coming resurrection.

regards,
#John
cherylu on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:09 pm #

#John,

I can see your point–up to a point! However, Jesus spoke of His being in the tomb or dead for 3 days as was Jonah 3 days in the fishes belly. I believe that has always been taken to be 3 literal days. It wouldn’t of fit the rest of the prophecy regarding Nineveh if it wasn’t. So it seems to me the analogy would break down if Jesus were to be raised in 3000 years–not 3 days.
Michael L on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:15 pm #

Wow.

I’m with Jim in #46.

There’s so many on here that indicate “No Christ = No God ” Wow…

I can accept
No Christ = no Messiah or No Christ = No Trinity or No Christ = No Salvation outside the Law etc, etc… Hinging Yahweh on the bodily resurrection of Christ is a stretch for me.

Cheryl U
But did you ever stop to think that before the resurrection no one had the Holy Spirit as we do now ?
Then how do you know that the OT writers were inerrant ? If they’re not Spirit led, who says they’re inerrant ?

In Him
Mick
#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:16 pm #

Depends if one believes that Jonah is literal history or figurative.

I would have to make sense of two things: Jesus’ bones and my spiritual experience of Jesus. If I believe that those two things to be true, then I will make all the other scriptures work to fit those two facts. Such an approach would be no different than the YEC approach to Genesis. Finding bones of Jesus is equivalent to finding in the very geology of the earth that it is billions of years old. We clearly have the latter and yet we can observe the gymnastics that the YECs go through in order to fit things into a framework that they believe must be true. Likewise, if I believe my experience of Jesus to be true, I’ll make it all work (including interpreting Jonah figuratively (which some do anyway)).

regards,
#John
#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:20 pm #

re 62 and the spirit in the OT

There is a long interpretive tradition, with which I concur, that holds that the OT persons were only indwelt temporarily when they had to accomplish something specific for God, for example, the builders of the first tabernacle, Samson, the prophets when prophesying, the writers of the OT when they were writing, etc. We now get indwelt permanently and continuously (unless we later reject God, but that is a whole ‘nother debate), and it seems that we can wax and wane with regard to how powerfully we experience that indwelling or how powerfully God works through us.

regards,
#John
EricW on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:23 pm #

#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 3:59 pm:
Re post 56
I thought it was obvious: “raise bread” of course. It was a reference by CMP to the bread used at the last supper. Was it leavened or unleavened?

I know what you’re thinking. “Did He raise bread or did He not raise bread?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as He is the Son of God, the most powerful Person in the world, and would blow the door to a tomb clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Does it matter? Well, does it, punk?
Robert in Milw on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:37 pm #

As I like SciFi, this is an interesting thought experiment. I would worry along the path of a multitude of Universes. Did the past I visited belong to the Earth I currently inhabit?

Secondly, did I maintain my awareness, or was I plunged into a “virtual experience”?

Given that there was an invention such as time travel, what other challenges to human perception could there be?

I believe like others have said, that if Jesus had not been resurrected, we believers are to be pitied. Most atheists would be right about that.

The alternative of converting to Judaism, and still wait for the Hope to come is a possibility. Not likely, because I am a sinner who needs God’s help every day!
cherylu on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:43 pm #

Hi Mick,

When I said, “But did you ever stop to think that before the resurrection no one had the Holy Spirit as we do now ?” What I was referring to was what #John spoke of in #64. That is what I meant by the Spirit coming upon them for specific things. I do, of course, believe they were Spirit led in writing the OT. Otherwise we would certainly have no guarantee at all that they were actually writing and speaking words from God.
#John1453 on 04 Dec 2009 at 4:44 pm #

re #65 Eric

Come on, make my day.
Cadis on 04 Dec 2009 at 5:35 pm #

The proof that our sins were forgiven or that Christ’s work on the cross was acceptable was that he died and…………….. came back to tell ! alive and well ! without the resurrection we have no assurance our sins are forgiven or that all is well. I wouldn’t follow that Messiah any more than I would follow David Koresh. I pray I would not follow…look he is here or look he is in the desert..we are not asked to believe every claim without some, I won’t say proof, but verification or validity.
Wm Tanksley on 04 Dec 2009 at 5:43 pm #

Nope, wouldn’t make a difference to me. I’d argue that Christ is still to be raised, just not yet. I’d also argue that He is with me in Spirit just as He is now (i.e., I’m joined to Him spiritually through God the Spirit).

I concede that you could do that if you wanted (i.e. as a matter of your own free will), but surely you see that’s not how the writers of scripture spoke. None of what you’re saying has anything to do with the Christianity taught in the New Testament. Furthermore, it makes all the same claims about having reconciled man with God that Christianity does, but without any apparent warrant that the reconciliation actually worked. You run into Mill’s argument against miracles: incredible claims require incredible proofs; and now the claim “man is reconciled to God” isn’t backed up by the proof that “God raised His Christ up from the dead.”

-Wm (dare I say “of your own libertarian free will”?)
Wm Tanksley on 04 Dec 2009 at 5:54 pm #

“I would have to make sense of two things: Jesus’ bones and my spiritual experience of Jesus.”

You should doubt your senses, your experiences; not radical doubt, but question whether they can actually support the conclusions you’re reaching based on them. You’re claiming to conclude that Christ’s intercession with God worked based on a feeling inside yourself; but on what grounds can you claim that your internal feelings testify to your relationship with God? Because a little thing can affect them. A slight disorder of the stomach can make them cheat. You may be a bit of undigested beef, a blob of mustard, a crumb of cheese. Yes. There’s more gravy than of grave about you.

-Wm
Ray Nearhood on 04 Dec 2009 at 6:23 pm #

God would be dead. Nietzsche would be my philosopher of choice, I suppose. I guess I would have to conclude that I was among the most pitiable people for the past fifteen years (agreeing with only that statement of the foolish Paul, and nothing else).
EricW on 04 Dec 2009 at 7:19 pm #

I’d likely revert to my native-born Judaism and await the Messiah. Christ’s failure to rise from the dead wouldn’t invalidate the Old Testament, just the Apostles’ and the Church’s and Christians’ interpretation of it.
Rey Reynoso on 04 Dec 2009 at 7:27 pm #

I just don’t know how anyone could switch to Judaism in light of all this. God speaks, makes promises, the promises comes to be, a virgin bears a child, he performs miracles, he talks about what’s going to happen, he stands tall going back to Jerusalem to face death, dies triumphantly and….

….stays dead.

This is more than a “woops, we believed in the wrong guy”. This is the right guy but not even He could beat death. “Give up,” it says “Don’t even bother. Sure Lazarus got up, but guess what, a few days from now he’ll die too. Everyone dies. Even God.”

“Give up.”
Michael L on 04 Dec 2009 at 7:46 pm #

EricW..yep. Although not native-born Judaism

#John1453 and CherylU: Thanks…we’re on the same page. God, Spirit, no Christ (yet)… conclusion: Judaism

In Him
Mick
bethyada on 04 Dec 2009 at 9:51 pm #

Time machines are philosophically and physically impossible contraptions.

There is difficulty in answering this question in that people have met Jesus. The interaction people now have with Jesus is related to the fact he currently is alive. It is like asking what would happen if I went to The US and found that Michael Patton does not exist, would I still read his blog? I don’t know, but I do, and have been reading it so there must be someone writing this blog.

If Jesus did not rise there is no Christianity.

But I am and still would be convinced God exists. So I would be a Theist of sorts.

The problem is that I am aware I sin. Morality (and moral failure) is real. Without Jesus I am in terrible state. I guess I can only appeal to God’s mercy.
Mike Beidler on 05 Dec 2009 at 12:45 am #

Unfortunately, I can’t choose an answer in your poll, because it’s not there. I can’t choose option #1 because even the resurrection of Christ’s spirit (sans the reanimation of his physical body) from Sheol/Hades would still be a historical (albeit spiritual and “unseen”) event.

I can’t choose option #2 because I do believe Christ’s body was historically and literally reanimated by His spirit, which was (more importantly) resurrected from Sheol/Hades.

I can’t choose option #3 because of reasons given below.

I can’t choose option #4 because I’d prefer not to be cognitively dissonant.

And I can’t choose option #5 because of reasons given below.

The bodily, i.e., physical, resurrection of Jesus was a definitive sign to Jesus’ disciples that the spirit of their Messiah had been indeed resurrected from Hades/Sheol (the gates of Hell—i.e., Sheol/Hades—will not prevail against Christ or His Church). Jesus’ power over Sheol/Hades was/is a much more important point to demonstrate, from a salvific perspective, than the reanimation of his physical body. But his physical resurrection served a real purpose, which was to convince others that their encounter with the risen Christ was quite real and not possibly a product of their imagination or wishful thinking.

Even if Jesus’ physical body had remained in the grave, yet I experienced an encounter with the risen Christ (i.e., resurrected from Sheol/Hades) in His new bio-spiritual body (which I believe may very well be a separate entity from his bio-physical body), then my faith is not in vain and quite validated, thank you.
John on 05 Dec 2009 at 7:23 am #

I don’t know that I even understand the question, and especially so since quite a few people say they would retain their Christian faith, since I don’t know what CHristian faith is without the resurrection. I can understand faith in God or something, or a return to Judaism, but what exactly is Christian faith without the resurrection? What is this faith?
Joe on 05 Dec 2009 at 7:31 am #

I agree 100% with Eric W. post 73. I don’t see why you would throw away the Old Testament cause the New Testament was false. That’s like Christians throwing away the New Testament cause the koran is false.
JoanieD on 05 Dec 2009 at 8:16 am #

As I stated above, I do believe Jesus’ actual physical body was raised from the dead and changed to become a spiritualized physical body which entered somehow into heaven. But Michael has proposed this question and I also stated I would not stop being a Christian if Jesus’ actual bones were found. Some of you say, “It’s impossible to remain a Christian because there is no Christianity without Jesus’ actual body being resurrected and I would then just continue sinning” and some of the commenters seem to indicate that they would relish sinning! But I hope they realize that sinning does not just separate us from the presence of God, but also brings grief to us and to our loved ones. God wants you to be filled with love, joy, peace…not sin and grief. Are you saying there is no God if Jesus’ actual body was not resurrected? Are you saying there is no right or wrong? Obviously, God has always existed and the Holy Spirit has always existed. Michael has not told us that we have to negate any experiences we have ever had if Jesus was not resurrected. So if the Holy Spirit has acted upon us and within our lives and then we found out Jesus’ bones were found, we would ask ourselvesm, “Well, how is the Holy Spirit working within me?” Perhaps we would then remember that when Jesus was walking on the earth prior to his death, he said that he would send the Comforter, the Advocate to us to be with us until the end of the world. HOW he did that is not something we can really understand. The Holy Spirit didn’t just suddenly come about. The Holy Spirit worked with the prophets of the Old Testament and we are told that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb. We are also told about Cornelius in Acts 10, ” He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, ‘Cornelius!’ Cornelius stared at him in fear. ‘What is it, Lord?’ he asked. The angel answered, ‘Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter.’ ” God used Cornelius to teach Peter that God responds to anyone seeking to do God’s will and he used Peter to bring the fullness of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his family. So, Cornelius, who was not even Jewish was visited by an angel because of his devotion to God. God will not leave anyone bereft who seeks to do his will. HOW God does all that is great and wonderful mystery.

And I like the way a Mike Beidler writes in #77. He talks about if Jesus’ actual body was not resurrected and yet his disciples saw him, then he must have created another bio-physical body. Why not? God created us from the dust of the earth. He can create a body as needed.

Neverthless, I DO believe Jesus actual body was…
The Consequences of Evidentialism | Choosing Hats on 05 Dec 2009 at 9:03 am #

[...] (A Quick Question – @Parchment and Pen) [...]
cherylu on 05 Dec 2009 at 10:43 am #

It seems to me to be clear that in I Cor Paul is speaking of an actual physical resurrection of the body which will be changed into a new glorious body. It doesn’t sound to me at all like he is saying the old body stays behind and God creates a totally different one to give to us or to Jesus. That also rules out what some have spoken of as a “spiritual resurrection” of Jesus.

And Paul makes it very clear that without this resurrection of Jesus that he described which is of the physical body, we are still in our sins and are of all men most to be pitied.

Again I will say: No actual past tense physical bodily resurrection of Jesus = no Christianity and no salvation from sins today.
cherylu on 05 Dec 2009 at 11:06 am #

Michael (CMP),

What would it do to YOUR faith if Jesus tomb was not empty?
Cadis on 05 Dec 2009 at 12:06 pm #

Joanie D,

You are correct that a belief in God would still, and should still be in tact without the resurrection of Christ. That God would still be evidenced in creation as awesome, provisional, etc. Others are also right that Judaism and the OT would remain unaffected. But Christianity and the NT would be utterly shaken to the point that none of the witnesses or testimony that we do have of Christ and his life would be believable, it would all become tainted. How could anyone know if God excepted the claims that Jesus was the lamb that takes away the sin of the world without the proof that the curse and judgment of death had been overturned, met and liberated?

As far as going back in time after believing you been saved and liberated from death and the law…that would be a tough transition, One maybe that I would have to face ..back to sacrificing sheep and priests and law and cleansings..because without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

If the bones are in the tomb we have no proof that Jesus of Nazareth is the Savior, the Lamb, the high Priest. We can only hope what he said was true, because he never returned from the Holy of Holies to display triumphantly that the sacrifice was received of God. The bones would be clear evidence that he had not triumphed over death. Bones are the epitome and stark reality that death had swallowed him up and he was defeated by it or at the very least not yet triumphant over death and so not able to save being yet a victim himself. To await our resurrection based on knowing He was resurrected is faith. If we have to await his resurrection and then believe he will raise us too is akin to believing in fables.
cherylu on 05 Dec 2009 at 3:21 pm #

If I remember correctly, someone in an earlier comment asked if it was necessary to believe in Jesus’ resurrection to be saved or if believing in His death on the cross was enough. I didn’t think about it at the time, but these verses in Romans just came to my mind:

“But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” Romans 10:8-10
Ken Pulliam on 05 Dec 2009 at 3:24 pm #

This survey is interesting. As you probably know, William Craig was asked the same question and he said he would not lose his Christian faith but would think that somehow he was tricked perhaps by Satan.

I think Craig is being honest. There is really nothing (NOTHING) that could disconfirm his Christian faith because he has the witness of the Spirit. I wrote a blog post on the inner witness of the Spirit and the Mormon’s burning in the bosom recently.

See http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/

I wonder if 70% of your readers would really give up their faith if somehow the bones of Jesus were discovered. I tend to think they can say that because they know there is no possibility of any bones being found today being proven to be the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. Its impossible, so they can pretend that their faith really is disconfirmable, when in reality, I think most Christians are like Craig–there is really nothing that could disconfirm their prior religious belief.

Ken
C Michael Patton on 05 Dec 2009 at 4:33 pm #

Cheryl,

My “Christian” faith would be over as there would no longer be a basis for it. Paul’s words are haunting and should guide us. If Christ has not been raised, we are of all men most to be pitied.
Rev. J on 05 Dec 2009 at 4:44 pm #

Is “punt” an option? Seriously, I find it inconceivable that Christ could raise the dead, and not Himself, also rise. Maybe we should “go back” and check out those stories too!
Drew K on 05 Dec 2009 at 5:22 pm #

What a ludicrous exercise. I’d rather deal in “what is” than “what if.” If CMP was trying to get us to see how essential the resurrection, then fine. Otherwise, in the spirit of Dr. Mike (comment #34), I mock you all. I don’t mean top be unirenic(?) but please… there are no end to hypotheticals. Let’s deal in reality.
Rey Reynoso on 05 Dec 2009 at 5:27 pm #

So Drew, you never deal with counterfactuals ay?
Dallas on 05 Dec 2009 at 9:43 pm #

If it could be conclusive shown that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Paul would be right. We would still be in our sins, our message and faith would be vain, and the apostles would have been exposed as charlatans or mentally unstable. We would truly be the most pitiful of all people.

If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then the early Christians would have either been liars or certifiable mental cases. A church filled with that kind of demographic would have miserably failed to survive the hostility of society and the Roman state that the early church faced. The church would have been DOA if it were not for the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The continued existence and subsequent victory of the church demonstrates the power of the resurrection.

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 15, deductively demonstrated through logic the necessity of the resurrection of Jesus. I would therefore conclude that any finding that determined that Christ did not rise from the dead would be fraudulent, no matter how convincing it sounded.
Dr_Mike on 05 Dec 2009 at 10:46 pm #

Drew:

Lighten up, eh? I wasn’t mocking anyone: it’s what I would do.

This has been an interesting and revealing thread to read. It cuts to the very heart of the basis for the hope that is in us.

No resurrection, no return of Jesus Christ.
Jason C on 06 Dec 2009 at 12:46 am #

I wonder if 70% of your readers would really give up their faith if somehow the bones of Jesus were discovered. I tend to think they can say that because they know there is no possibility of any bones being found today being proven to be the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. Its impossible, so they can pretend that their faith really is disconfirmable, when in reality, I think most Christians are like Craig–there is really nothing that could disconfirm their prior religious belief.

The problem with your assertion is that without the resurrection Christianity is inexplicable, particularly in light of its Jewish founders who a) had a perfectly good religion of their own, and b) knew the penalties for setting another alongside God.

Meanwhile a hypothesis (Jesus rose from the dead) doesn’t have to be falsifiable in the present, merely potentially falsifiable at some point. Michael identified the one piece of evidence that would falsify Christianity, not in the present (as there would be no way to prove such) but within the first weeks of the founding of the Jesus movement.

Bill Craig stated that he would believe he was being deceived because without the Resurrection the first fifty years of the Church makes no sense.

You might be more accurate to say that we wouldn’t give up our trust in God now (faith) because Christianity wasn’t falsified when it could have been.

Meanwhile Mormons hold to the “burning in the bosom” because that’s all they have. All the claims that Joseph Smith made about historical America that can be investigated have been found to be false. Meanwhile the gospels do not offer much that substantially disagrees with what we find in other sources (alternate texts and archaeological digs). You’re not comparing like with like (but then bait and switch is an easy tactic isn’t it?)
Lisie on 06 Dec 2009 at 2:54 am #

I’d cry. A lot. I’d like to say that I’d then walk away from Christianity, but realistically, I’d try as many ways as I could think of to make it work without the Resurrection. They’d probably all fail though, because if I can’t trust the New Testament about something as central as the Resurrection, what can I trust it about?

I’d probably use the time machine to go back a few more years and see Jesus while he was alive to figure out what was really going on.

From there, I’d look into all the other world religions in hopes of discovering one that was true. I’d probably be praying a lot throughout this whole process, just in case there was a personal God who was paying attention. I’d also try really hard to figure out what was really happening all the times I thought I was having experiences with Jesus.
Ryft Braeloch on 06 Dec 2009 at 5:20 am #

Only two people held that the question is intrinsically incomprehensible. I find that somewhat telling.

P.S. Hi there, Josh. Yes, indeed a very long time.
C Michael Patton on 06 Dec 2009 at 10:26 am #

It is interesting that nearly 1/3 of the people on this blog said their Christianity could continue even if they knew evidentially that Jesus did not raise from the grave.
Ken Pulliam on 06 Dec 2009 at 10:27 am #

Jason,

You say:

“The problem with your assertion is that without the resurrection Christianity is inexplicable, particularly in light of its Jewish founders who a) had a perfectly good religion of their own, and b) knew the penalties for setting another alongside God.”

I think the rise of Christianity can be explained on the basis that some people THOUGHT they saw Christ alive just as easily as it could be by a historical, physical resurrection.

You say:

“Bill Craig stated that he would believe he was being deceived because without the Resurrection the first fifty years of the Church makes no sense.”

That is not what he says. He says he would know his senses are being deceived because of the “witness of the Spirit.”

You say:

“Meanwhile Mormons hold to the “burning in the bosom” because that’s all they have. All the claims that Joseph Smith made about historical America that can be investigated have been found to be false. Meanwhile the gospels do not offer much that substantially disagrees with what we find in other sources (alternate texts and archaeological digs). You’re not comparing like with like (but then bait and switch is an easy tactic isn’t it?)”

Most critical scholars would say that the Bible is also not reliable although its much harder to show since its so old and BOM is much more recent.

The point is that Mormons, intelligent Mormons, hold to their faith because of the burning of the bosom and perhaps also because they would say, “how can you explain the rise of Mormonism” (the difficult journey to Utah, deaths along the way, etc). without saying its from God?

Ken
Moara on 06 Dec 2009 at 11:03 am #

Hmmm.
I’ve run into this question a couple times before.
I think when it comes down to it, my faith would be gone. I’m a Christian because I beleive it is true, and not because it is what works for me (something that I think non-christians don’t always realise about out faith).

Also, I don’t think it would accept it if I was taken back in time by someone else, the time machine would have to be my own invention, so that I could be sure of not being deceived.
cherylu on 06 Dec 2009 at 11:09 am #

CMP,

You said, “It is interesting that nearly 1/3 of the people on this blog said their Christianity could continue even if they knew evidentially that Jesus did not raise from the grave.”

I have been really astonished by this conversation. As you said earlier, I have always understood the resurrection to be foundational to our faith. But obviously, a lot of folks don’t see it that way. Maybe a blog ariticle on the subject is in order??
Joshua Allen on 06 Dec 2009 at 2:18 pm #

@CMP, I too am surprised by people who say that they would still consider the Jewish faith to be plausible, or more, Christ to be the Messiah, if they came to believe that the resurrection did not occur. I wouldn’t say “astonished”, though, since I think people are primarily making rhetorical points.

On the other hand, I still maintain that your question is intrinsically incoherent. Like the poem of the Jabberwocky, it has a grammatical structure, but makes no sense.

The comment “Christianity could continue even if they knew evidentially that Jesus did not raise from the grave” is a good example. That statement presupposes that Christians do not already know evidentially that Christ did raise from the grave. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, is arguing that such a presupposition is incoherent. How can someone be a Christian without knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that the resurrection occurred? A Christian who simply believes that the resurrection is “plausible” or “probable”, is indeed pitiable. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that such a person is not Christian, but Paul certainly considers such people to be on the fringe of lunacy.

So your challenge, in essence, is asking “If you got in some machine, and became convinced that every bit of evidence and experience in your prior life had been a lie, what would it do to you?”

You pose the question as if the new time-machine “evidence” about the resurrection would be filling a void in evidence that exists today, as if we have no evidence that Christ is risen. I don’t see how you can presuppose that without presupposing that Christianity is wrong. That presupposition is extreme, and must be rejected. If we reject this presupposition, your scenario can only be a scenario of contradictory evidence. It’s like asking, “What if you woke up one morning to find out that you were a green alien strapped into a virtual reality game on your planet, and had only dreamed that you were a human?” That is exactly the sort of question you are asking here. Such questions are seemingly profound, but quickly run out of steam.

If some isolated incident with a time machine convincingly made me question a lifetime of evidence about the resurrection, you can bet that I would also question the time machine.

Furthermore, I don’t buy the presupposition that someone becomes a Christian because he first considers the resurrection story to have been plausible. It didn’t happen that way with Paul, and didn’t happen with any of the Saints that I read about. Peter’s belief in the deity of Christ, like Paul’s, came *before* he became convinced of the bodily resurrection. Sure, it might be possible to find people whose belief in the bodily resurrection led directly to their belief in Christ’s deity, but it seems far more common that the evidence for bodily resurrection comes *after* the person has proceeded in faith with Christ.
cherylu on 06 Dec 2009 at 2:52 pm #

Joshua Allen,

“it seems far more common that the evidence for bodily resurrection comes *after* the person has proceeded in faith with Christ.”

I wonder about that conclusion. In I Cor 15, Paul says that Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection are all part of the Gospel that He preached to them and that will save them if they hold fast to that belief. Those verses sound to me like belief in the resurrection is very necessary right from the start of a person’s faith in Him.
EricW on 06 Dec 2009 at 5:18 pm #

The point is that Mormons, intelligent Mormons, hold to their faith because of the burning of the bosom and perhaps also because they would say, “how can you explain the rise of Mormonism” (the difficult journey to Utah, deaths along the way, etc). without saying its from God?

I suppose Muslims would say the same thing about the spread of Islam and how it’s conquered Christian countries.
C Michael Patton on 06 Dec 2009 at 6:10 pm #

While I understand how one might compare the spread of Islam and Mormonism to the spread of Christianity, there is a gulf of difference between them, both historically and theologically, which make the type of comparisons that some are trying to make misleading.

1. The type of claims. What are the essential claims of both? They both have to do with the subjective experience of their founders. It could only be comparable if Jesus Christ came and said personally that he was God because he had such and such experience and that we should believe him even if we have no way to validate his experience. But Christianity is built upon many historical markers, the most important of which is Christ’s resurrection. We don’t believe that Christ rose from the grave because he said he did even though no one witnessed this. But because of the testimony of many others and the impact the testimony itself had on history.

2. Implications. The implications of this historical event are incredible for Christians. If Christ did raise from the gave, his testimony is true and he is Lord. This is much different than one person’s (Mohammad or Joseph Smith’s) testimony that what they saw indeed happened as it does not have the same implications and could be written off very easily.
Mike Beidler on 06 Dec 2009 at 7:14 pm #

I think a point that some may be missing is this: The bio-physical resurrection of Jesus was a “sign” of a greater spiritual reality, i.e., the literal and historical resurrection of Jesus’ spirit from Sheol/Hades. The reanimation of Jesus’ bio-physical body was designed to provide definitive proof of this event, which took place in the spiritual, non-physical realm, and presented to the disciples so that there would be no doubt as to the true state of their Messiah’s spirit. It would also bolster their faith and leave no room for the idea that it was all “in their heads,” so to speak.

Read Romans 6:5-11 very, very carefully. The death which is/has/will be conquered by Christians is not physical death. That’s simply a fact of life, and it always has been. What we have defeated/will defeat/are defeating is spiritual death, i.e., eternal separation from God. We have all been crucified with Christ, we have all been buried with Christ, we have all been raised to new life with Christ. Yet physical death still follows us, each and every one.

I could care less if my bio-physical body were never reanimated. I really don’t have an attachment to it. I’m much more looking forward to my bio-spiritual body, described in 1 Corinthians 15. What is sown is not what is raised.

That being said, if the main enemy to be conquered is not physical death, but spiritual death, then Jesus’ bio-physical body is not the important thing. It’s the resurrection of his spirit. If his spirit were truly raised from Sheol/Hades, without the flesh being reanimated, Jesus has still truly conquered something greater than physical death.

Again, when Paul speaks of our faith being in vain if Jesus truly has not been raised, I don’t believe that the physicality of the event is what Paul is concerned about. In fact, I don’t see mention of Jesus’ bio-physical body at all in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19, although I can see how easily that is assumed. What really concerns us is whether Jesus defeated spiritual death, and if in fact it did not occur as promised, then we are fools and still dead (spiritually, not physically!) in our sins.

To paraphrase Jesus (and maybe take it out of context a bit), it is not the resurrection of Jesus’ flesh that gives life, but rather the resurrection of Jesus’ spirit (cf. John 6:63).
cherylu on 06 Dec 2009 at 8:43 pm #

Mike Beidler,

I believe that I Cor 15 is speaking of physical death and spiritual death both. You say you don’t see physical death spoken of at all in verses 12-19. However, that discussion is based on the first 11 verses of the same chapter where the resurrection that was spoken of was certainly a physical one since it speaks of all of the people that saw Jesus. And from the Gospels we know that Jesus had a body. He made that very plain. The point is, that if He hadn’t conquered death, He wouldn’t of been raised. And neither would we. We need both what was done on the cross and in the resurrection to complete our salvation. Death came through Adam, resurrection (spiritual and physical), through Jesus.

The body that is raised is not the same. It is changed, transformed. But it is still raised.
Greg on 06 Dec 2009 at 9:05 pm #

#John1453, Re #49,

I was surprised to hear you say this. Unless you’re trying to play the devil’s advocate, this position is impossible in light of scripture no matter how you try to slice it. There really isn’t a way to get around the New Testament author’s statements regarding the risen Christ. The only way to do it is by denying any truth to their statements.

Matthew 28:7 – Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you. (Risen past tense)

Mark 9:9 – And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. (They told already, therefore the Son of Man has risen from the dead.)

Mark 16:6 – And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. (He has risen, what more can be said?)

Luke 24:3-7 – but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise. (Three days after his crucifixion an angel is saying he rose on the third day. No room for a non-literal interpretation)

Luke 24:36-39 – As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (With Jesus standing in front of them saying he isn’t a ghost, I think I can say with certainty that Luke thought of Jesus as bodily risen from the grave, past tense.)

1 Corinthians 15:14-17 – And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (Paul speaks in the past tense too.)

Paul says it very plainly. I don’t see anything referring to a future risen Christ, only one who has been risen already and will come a second time. Peter’s speeches in Acts contains numerous references to God having raised Jesus too.

There just isn’t any room for reinterpretations.
Joshua Allen on 06 Dec 2009 at 9:34 pm #

@cheryl

In I Cor 15, Paul says that Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection are all part of the Gospel that He preached to them and that will save them if they hold fast to that belief. Those verses sound to me like belief in the resurrection is very necessary right from the start of a person’s faith in Him.

Yes, I agree. Like you, I read Paul to be saying that someone would be crazy to claim to be a Christian but not believe unequivocally in the resurrection. That’s why I feel the original question makes no sense. It’s like saying “First, imagine that you’re not a Christian. Now, imagine that you encounter some evidence that appears to disprove Christianity. Would you still be a Christian after that?” By demanding that the person imagine that he or she isn’t a Christian from the start, the rest of the exercise becomes redundant. The resurrection and Christianity are inseparable — that’s what Paul is saying.

On the other hand, I don’t think that belief if the resurrection is a doorway to Christianity for individuals. Nobody becomes Christian by first becoming convinced of the plausibility or likelihood of the resurrection. Can you think of anyone who has *ever* said, “Now that I’ve become convinced that bodily resurrection is possible, and that the man named Jesus of Nazareth did, probably, raise from the dead; it clears my last remaining objections, and I am prepared to accept the Godship of Jesus”?

That isn’t how Peter or Paul were converted, and isn’t how untold millions of Christians were converted. Can you think of *anyone* who was converted that way? The only example that even comes to mind is Thomas — and Thomas already knew Christ, was prepared to die for Christ, and clearly articulated his desire to believe as well as the specific sign he desired to see as “evidence” of the resurrection. So for Thomas, too, the “evidence” of the resurrection was personal and experiential.

CMP is making an important point, that our belief in the resurrection is not based on some completely unfalsifiable testimony of a single individual. Our belief in the resurrection is based on considerably more “evidence” than any other major religion can claim, including Judaism. But this point about evidence is primarily useful for explaining to unbelievers why our belief in the resurrection is not unreasonable. It is emphatically *not* a road to belief. Since the original question was about the effect on *individual* faith, I consider the admittedly powerful contribution to apologetics to be irrelevant.
DDP on 06 Dec 2009 at 10:14 pm #

The more I think about what I would do with that type of information the more it makes my head hurt. At first I thought I would simply abandon my Christian faith, but it’s really not that simple. Though I could not maintain a faith based on a lie I would attempt to cling to some form of hope to avoid despair. I then thought about Enoch and Elijah thinking God could still make a way for the rest of us as He did those individuals and other OT people like David, Abraham, etc., who didn’t have anything except the promise of the redeemer. This led me to think that I would embrace OT writings and look forward to the Messiah. But then I would have to wrestle with the fact that none of the OT prophecies regarding the messiah, example Isaiah 53, have yet to be fullfilled. I would also struggle with the fact that OT was written for the Israel audience, not gentiles. In addition, the fantastic stories in the OT would be even more difficult to swallow. How could I then endure the questions that would continue to surface and trust OT writings as the ones to rely on? I would come to question whether the reliability of the OT is any different than other religious writings.
Steve on 06 Dec 2009 at 10:41 pm #

cherylu,

That Christ appeared to many is, for me, undoubtable. But need he have done so in a physical body? For instance, we have excellent reason to believe that it wasn’t a physical appearance of Christ that got Paul converted.

Besides, Paul made a big point in 1 Cor 15 about the fact that the thing that is sown was not the same thing that is raised. Why Christians have insisted so much upon the idea of “selfsame body”, or even just a glorified physical body, I can’t imagine.
cherylu on 06 Dec 2009 at 11:13 pm #

Steve,

I Cor 15:53-55 speaks about the mortal and perishable body that we die with, that which is “sown”, putting on immortality and the imperishable. According to Thayer’s Lexicon, “put on” means, “to sink into (clothing), put on, clothe one’s self”.

“For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” I Cor 15:53:55

That certainly speaks of it being the same body we had when we died but changed and made immortal and imperishable, does it not? I would think this is where the emphasis among Christians on the “selfsame” body came from.
Ryan Phelps on 06 Dec 2009 at 11:13 pm #

Easy.

Negative: No more meaning to life (1 Cor. 15:14, of course).
Positive: Dude, I have a TIME MACHINE.
Mike Beidler on 07 Dec 2009 at 1:26 am #

@ #105,

Cherylu,

However, that discussion is based on the first 11 verses of the same chapter where the resurrection that was spoken of was certainly a physical one since it speaks of all of the people that saw Jesus. And from the Gospels we know that Jesus had a body. He made that very plain.

I have never denied that Jesus’ physical body was reanimated. I think what may be happening is that you’re conflating the idea of “resurrection” with the reanimation of a bio-physical body. Cherylu, resurrection is, oh, so much more than that. When the entire Pauline corpus is examined, it’s fairly clear to me that whenever Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection, his primary emphasis is on the spiritual aspect of Jesus’ resurrection, not just the raising of his physical body.

(It is, I think, unfortunate that the Church—at least the teachers from the multitude of denominations and traditions in the Church with which I’ve been familiar over the last 40 years—rarely, if ever, assign a spiritual—and equally, if not more, real—aspect to Jesus’ resurrection.)

But I can understand the ease with which Jesus’ spiritual resurrection is conflated with his physical resurrection, much as baptism in the NT has been, at various times in the history of the church, conflated with salvation, as it usually occurs immediately following belief. (And then there’s Peter’s thorny statement that baptism saves.) I think we can both agree that it is not actually baptism which saves, but one’s faith. It is, in fact, a physical manifestation (or reflection) of a greater spiritual reality. Likewise, it is not Jesus’ physical resurrection that is of primary importance but rather his spiritual resurrection, of which his physical resurrection is a manifestation (or reflection) of the more important reality.

The point is, that if He hadn’t conquered death, He wouldn’t of been raised. And neither would we.

But which death is the real enemy? Physical or spiritual?
JoanieD on 07 Dec 2009 at 8:08 am #

Mike Beidler said, “I’m much more looking forward to my bio-spiritual body.” Me too!

I think most of us agree that Jesus’ actual body DID raise, although in a changed way. (It is odd that when he was on the beach cooking up fish for Peter and pals, that they did not recognize him from his physical looks, but from what he said and did.) BUT…even before that happened, there were those who believed he was the Son of God. Peter confessed that. Even the demons knew that! And the centurion, upon seeing the things that happened when Jesus died on the cross said something to the effect of, “Surely this was the Son of God.” Heck, when he walked the earth, he raised the dead; he healed leprosy on the spot; he brought sight to people blind since birth. While he was on the cross, it went dark for some period of time. And when he died, dead people came out of their tombs and walked among the population. The curtain hiding the Holy of Holies in the temple was torn in two. And after his death, as he said would happen, the Holy Spirit came upon his disciples and they were empowered to tell the rest of the world that God’s Kingdom had begun with Jesus, the first-born of creation.

I agree that Jesus’ body DID raise from the dead and God thereby is reinforcing to us his love for his creation, for the world, for us. He is giving us the promise that all will be renewed. There is no place for gnosticism in Christianity. God made matter and loves matter and loves human beings.

Someone above says it’s a waste of time to contemplate something that isn’t true. My husband as well hates “What if” scenarios. I understand the dislike, but it’s also kind of interesting. People like to consider things like, “What if there had been no Hitler.”

I do have to wonder if Christianity would have spread the way it did without Jesus’ disciples seeing him raised physically. I think they had to see him physically resurrected. I think they had to see him ascend and know that he is always with us until the end of the world and then even after that. I think they needed to know that the body is important and it is THROUGH our bodies that God actually works! What an important message that is, especially at this Christmas season. God has been born from a woman and took on flesh to become one of us so that we may become united to God. He conquered the power of evil through his death, freeing us to love completely. Amen.
EricW on 07 Dec 2009 at 8:46 am #

If I had a time machine, certain people whom I would visit would be invited onboard and then transported back to the Mesozoic era where they would be summarily ejected from said time machine and left to enjoy the rest of their lives.
Monday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath on 07 Dec 2009 at 9:57 am #

[...] would be it (the end) … what other conclusion could you [...]
Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e96v1 on 07 Dec 2009 at 9:57 am #

[...] would be it (the end) … what other conclusion could you [...]
Steve on 07 Dec 2009 at 10:52 am #

cherylu (#110),

But the point is, of what nature is that which is put on? In his analogy of the seed, the physical is the shell from which the inside life springs upon the perishing of the shell. Our minds, who we really are, are currently tied to the chemical firings of our physical brains, so as such they are quite mortal — until our essence is given a new home in which to reside.

If we found Jesus’ bones, I would shrug it off as merely the husk of the living Savior I’ve known.
EricW on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:15 am #

If we found Jesus’ bones, I would shrug it off as merely the husk of the living Savior I’ve known.

If we found Jesus’ bones, then Matthew’s angel at the tomb would have been lying about what he said to the women (it reads as if he stayed there on the stone after he rolled it away and guarded the tomb until the women came), and we’re also left with the odd implication that someone first laboriously unwound the myrrh-and-aloes-wrapped body of its linen wrappings and spices and headcloth before transporting it nude and letting it rot so all that would be left would be the bones for an ossuary.
Mike Beidler on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:16 am #

I agree with Steve (#116). And I would venture to guess that he also believes in some sort of continuity between our current selves and our future selves, without labeling what the nature of that continuity is.
cherylu on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:37 am #

Steve,

I guess we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one as I can’t read that chapter any other way than saying that our current bodies are swallowed up by the new one. I just don’t see it as saying that the old one is discarded to the point where even the bones are left behind. To put something on, (clothe the mortal) with immortality, speaks of putting the immortality on over the mortal to me, not of leaving the mortal, i.e. the bones, totally behind.

“See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Luke 24:39

Even Jesus resurrection body had flesh and bones. And He made a point of saying to them, “It is I, Myself”! He was not so totally changed into a different form that He was no longer recognizable to the disciples.

I think maybe the differences we see here are that you seem to be focusing more on the analogy of the seed perishing, while I am focusing more on the mortal “putting on” immortality and the fact that Jesus still had flesh and bones post resurrection and was still known by the disciples.
cherylu on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:42 am #

And I agree with Eric W. If His bones were left in the grave, we would be faced with the fact that angels lie, or that the writers of the New Testament were not telling the truth.

Either of which leaves us in the position of then having to question the reality of the whole story of Jesus life, death, and resurrection from start to finish as far as I can tell. Not a good place to be–having no objective reality to base our faith on!
Mike Beidler on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:47 am #

Cherlyu,

Let’s not be too hasty here. Would you also say that if the writers of the gospel accounts were merely in error (an alternate possibility that you didn’t offer), that it casts into doubt the entirety of the gospel accounts?
Steve on 07 Dec 2009 at 11:48 am #

EricW (#117),
What it would mean would be that perhaps all the details of the actual resurrection were not recorded accurately. There’s plenty of precedent for inaccurate historical detail (or inaccuracy in general) in Scripture, so it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

cherylu,
I’m not trying to convince you, per se. But I would like you to see that the discovery of Jesus’ bones would not necessarily mean the devastation of Christianity — there are other coherent ways of reading the text. It might would turn out to be a matter of, “If the Bible’s not got it recorded 100% accurately, and if Jesus’ body was not physically risen, I have no interest in Christianity anymore. If this means Christians have been wrong about this stuff, despite the genuineness of their experience with God through a relationship with Christ, then count me out.” This I find more disturbing than no physical resurrection.

Everyone on this blog seems to say that nothing matters and Christianity’s in the grave if Christ’s body was left in the tomb. Before you come to that conclusion, don’t seal the door shut behind you — a resurrection may occur.
cherylu on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:02 pm #

Well, Steve, if the Bible can’t even get it right about the very foundations of our faith–Jesus resurrection–then I honestly don’t see any point in basing our faith or our practice on anything we read there at all.

It is one thing to say that we have misunderstood the details of the creation story in Genesis. Or even that some details were wrong elsewhere. It is another altogether to say that the Bible is telling us a lie about the very basics of our faith. It isn’t just one Gospel account that makes it plain that His body was not in the tomb either. And these are the things we are told we are to base our faith on! Remember, John said he wrote what he did so that we might believe.

How could you continue to base your faith on what you read in a book that tells you lies about the very things it says you are to believe?

And if all that you are basing your faith on is your subjective experiences with the Lord, which of course we all have, you have no more basis for assuming what you have experienced is true than the Mormon’s do, for instance.
Wm Tanksley on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:11 pm #

Cherylu, resurrection is, oh, so much more than that.

Mike, if resurrection is so much more than that it must, for the Christian, include at least that. It’s more, yes; but that means that it’s not less. Almost every other religion, and every folk tradition, believes that the soul lives on after death; Christianity from the earliest days added that the body would be resurrected. This is what gives us hope.

When the entire Pauline corpus is examined, it’s fairly clear to me that whenever Paul speaks of Jesus’ resurrection, his primary emphasis is on the spiritual aspect of Jesus’ resurrection, not just the raising of his physical body.

Paul puts extraordinary emphasis on the physical nature of the resurrection, for example in 1 Co 15. It’s not about experiencing more than a body can give you; it’s about experiencing in your new body what your old body couldn’t handle.

It’s a bit vague to say that Paul is emphasizing “the spiritual aspect of Jesus’ resurrection”, as though Paul was only talking about what historically happened to Christ. No. The only “aspect” Paul talks about that isn’t what physically happened to Christ on the 3rd day was what we can know will happen to us because we are in union with Christ. You can call that a spiritual aspect if you want, but Paul grounds it on the certainty of Christ’s physical resurrection.

And if that specifically didn’t happen, we have no reason to believe that we have anything special to wait for. Nice feelings? Cool, but drugs or a pleasing conversation can get you those. Euphoria, and convictions of a relationship to a higher power? Science has long since explained those (although I must add that this doesn’t make them irrelevant — God created all men to have these).

(It is, I think, unfortunate that the Church—at least the teachers from the multitude of denominations and traditions in the Church with which I’ve been familiar over the last 40 years—rarely, if ever, assign a spiritual—and equally, if not more, real—aspect to Jesus’ resurrection.)

There are many unfortunate things in the Church, yes (and to be fair, you’re exactly right). One of them is the kind of gnosticism that allows people to say that “a spiritual meaning” can be more real than “a physical meaning”. Whatever either one might mean; the people who say it (including yourself) have absolutely nothing concrete in mind. As your last post above says, “without labeling what the nature of that continuity is”. You don’t seem to know what’s right, but you seem quite certain what’s wrong.

-Wm
Steve on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:14 pm #

(…)then I honestly don’t see any point in basing our faith or our practice on anything we read there at all.

I seriously doubt you hold anything else to this standard. Since when did you believe everything the newspaper tells you — does this mean that, balancing it and other news sources, you automatically disbelieve everything it says? Of course you don’t. Your faith is already a “best guess” scenario, unless you’ve got some definitive proof that you’re withholding from the rest of us!

It did sound very much like you were saying that if you can’t have the proof of Scripture, which proof you accept by faith, you can’t scrape up enough faith to believe the evidences for belief in the resurrection. I’m simply not there. The testimony of first century accounts from early believers (fallible and years after the fact as they may be), the meteoric rise of Christianity, etc., are things a resurrection appearance of some sort explain quite well; taking the fact that you, I, and millions more have had “subjective experiences” based around this explanation is good enough for me. I don’t expect 100% proof to come out of an unprovable text — that would require blind belief that I find unbelievable.
Bill on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:16 pm #

I think Steve is closest to the truth.

Read ALL the many old, different accounts of resurrection, and you see that they could all be metaphors for some kind of spiritual afterlife. Especially say Paul’s reference to our new “spiritual body.”

Jesus to be sure in one account, suggests he is not just a spirit; but that doesn’t rule out a spiritual “body.”
EricW on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:18 pm #

Well, if Quentin Tarantino ever makes a movie in which Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus break into the tomb and haul Jesus’ nude corpse away, leaving the unwrapped graveclothes for others to find and wonder what happened, I guess he can cast Eli Roth as Jesus (aka “The Bare Jew.”)

In other words, I think the possibility of finding Jesus’ bones AND thereafter holding on to one’s faith in the reliability of the Gospel accounts and the rest of the NT is ludicrous.

YMMV
Steve on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:20 pm #

Wm Tanksley,

You don’t seem to know what’s right, but you seem quite certain what’s wrong.

I am quite sure that neither Mike nor I are sure at all about the nature of the resurrection. He has said and I agree that a bodily resurrection of some sort is the most likely scenario. What I’m saying (and I think he is, too) is that the discovery of Jesus’ bones aren’t entirely without possibilities of explanation in a Christian way. (Correct me if I’m wrong, Mike.)
Henry on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:21 pm #

I think Steve is closest to the truth.

Am I embarrassed by being in just 1% of the population? It could be the top 1%, after all.

Jesus affirmed having a “body” and not just a spirit; but Paul spoke after all, of a spiritual “body.”
cherylu on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:34 pm #

Steve,

John 20:30-31 “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

John makes that statement directly after he makes a huge point of making it clear that Jesus body was not in the tomb and speaking about His post resurrection appearances. Since the resurrection is such a lynch pin of our faith as Paul makes it clear it is in I Cor., for the Bible to be wrong about that and then tell us this is why we are to believe, would leave it with very little credibility with me whatsoever.

Isn’t it true that if an author is wrong in his statements of the very most basic of facts on a subject, it gives you good reason to doubt the rest of what he says? It certainly makes you wonder where else he has his facts totally wrong or if he even made the whole thing up.

It is becoming obvious that your whole approach to the Bible and mine are totally different. It seems you don’t take it to be the inspired Word of God even on matters of the very basics of our faith.

I may not be able to do much commenting the rest of the day as I think my Grandaughter will be here soon and we are going to be doing Christmas projects. Grandma can’t wait!
Wm Tanksley on 07 Dec 2009 at 12:51 pm #

I think the rise of Christianity can be explained on the basis that some people THOUGHT they saw Christ alive just as easily as it could be by a historical, physical resurrection.

No, it’s not “just as easy”. None of the proposed workarounds is as straightforward explanation of the data. Now, with that said, we could all be wrong. It’s conceivable that all the historical evidence we refer to is just wrong; those people were (perhaps) all deceived by something we didn’t think of. Who knows — if we’re being wild, perhaps that was Loki playing a VERY EFFECTIVE trick on Odin. But we don’t have any evidence for the wild speculations. We have evidence only for the simple conclusion that Christ rose physically from the dead. (I do agree that this isn’t enough to accept Christianity — after all, we could conceivably have the same evidence about Lazarus, and that wouldn’t make us believe in Lazarianity.)

That is not what he says. He says he would know his senses are being deceived because of the “witness of the Spirit.”

I haven’t read him on this, but let me admit that I don’t admire it. To me, it smacks of someone who’s utterly confident in his reason. Philosophy is good, but the longer a chain of reasoning becomes — the further from the evidence — the less certain its conclusion becomes. The physical resurrection evidence is some of the most direct evidence we could possibly have; anyone who didn’t doubt after having THAT disproven is missing the point.

Most critical scholars would say that the Bible is also not reliable although its much harder to show since its so old and BOM is much more recent.

I don’t know if you’re right about “most critical scholars”. I know many historians doubt/disbelieve the miracle stories, at least methodologically; but they tend to accept the usefulness of the Bible as historical evidence, without necessarily accepting it as infallible or inerrant. I suspect you’re outright wrong in what you’re trying to say here, but I’m not certain what you mean; perhaps by “critical” you actually mean the scholars who have a negative attitude , rather than the scholars who “examine and judge carefully.”

-Wm
Joshua Allen on 07 Dec 2009 at 2:22 pm #

I think that a form of “Christianity” would actually be more appealing to more people if the resurrection were proven false. We prefer religions that are malleable — that can be twisted to our own aims. It’s been difficult for people to turn Christianity into a very effective tool, because of the Christian rejection of gnosticism and insistence on physical evidence and multiple witness testimony.

Think about it: if you’re someone like Simon Magus, you don’t want a religion that forces you to adhere to its precepts. You want a religion that can be bent to your will, and which rewards your mental prowess in constructing impenetrable spells by which to hypnotize the masses.

If Christianity were forced to toss out this foundational physical evidence, and build instead on a cornerstone of interpretive prowess and mental gymnastics, it would lose all integrity — and would be more virulent than any of the other unfalsifiable cults out there.
Ben on 07 Dec 2009 at 2:37 pm #

The simple answer for a tired mind:

I’d go back in time to the moment when the time machine was being invented and thwart the project, which of course I could never have done if I was successful.

Now we know why God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts: we hit the ceiling with just a simple conundrum!
EricW on 07 Dec 2009 at 2:58 pm #

The simple answer for a tired mind:

I’d go back in time to the moment when the time machine was being invented and thwart the project, which of course I could never have done if I was successful.

Now we know why God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts: we hit the ceiling with just a simple conundrum!

Ergo, if a backward-in-time-moving and space-time-affecting (i.e., not simply observational with NO EFFECT at ANY level on that which is observed) time machine can be invented, it’s already been invented.
Mike Beidler on 07 Dec 2009 at 3:01 pm #

Totally off topic (or is it?) …

Has anyone seen that MAD TV Terminator/Jesus parody on YouTube?
Wm Tanksley on 07 Dec 2009 at 6:51 pm #

Read ALL the many old, different accounts of resurrection,

There’s a peculiarity in your phrasing there which draws my attention. What “old, different accounts” are you talking about? When you uppercase “all”, are you trying to say that we shouldn’t restrict ourselves to the ones that we believe are true, but also look at the ones we now think are pure myth? Does this mean Egyptian, Greek, Sumerian myth? If so, what you’re saying is really, really different from the rest of this conversation.

I’m going to assume that you’re only talking about the Biblical accounts, Old and New Testaments. I’m not sure why you’d say “ALL” and “different”, but let’s leave it at that.

and you see that they could all be metaphors for some kind of spiritual afterlife.

If you really wanted to believe in that, you could interpret anything or nothing in favor of some amorphous conception of it. You’d be reasoning without either data or conclusion, though: no data, because you’re assuming that every possible point of every account is literally false but means something symbolic; and no conclusion, because you don’t bother figuring out WHAT is being symbolized.

And … what if the conclusion actually matters? What if God actually wants you to display faith in Him by becoming a Jew and working to rebuild the Temple, and this “Jesus” thing was a misunderstood distraction? He even gave you the knowledge to build a time machine to prove His point, and you looked at the evidence and didn’t modify your beliefs _at all_?

Did you even believe anything in the first place? How could anyone ever tell, since nothing you see actually affects your actions?

This winds up being a most unfortunate manner of protecting one’s Christianity — by spiritualizing it to insulate it from all challenge, you wind up losing any belief in any actual point.

-Wm
Ron Wolf on 02 Jan 2010 at 4:39 pm #

Would blow my faith out of the water!