Um. I'm sort of shocked that you, Gramps49, are apparently denying the physical resurrection. That's what you meant, wasn't it? Or am I misunderstanding? I mean, you are ELCA, right? I didn't think you folks did that.
It's not denying the physical resurrection--I would place it more in the I don't know category. Look at the story from John's eyes. Mary Madalene had told the disciples the tomb was empty. Peter and the Beloved Disciple both race to the tomb see it and then what? They go home. In Luke, it says the apostles considered the report as nonsense. Then comes the appearance of Jesus behind the locked doors. That, to me, is much more important then an empty tomb.
If it was a purely physical resurrection, Jesus could not have suddenly appeared to the disciples. Paul gives us another clue, though. He talks about the resurrection of the spiritual body. The resurrection is still a body but it is transformed, spirit filled
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
The enemy of faith is not doubt but certitude. As I said, this is in the I don't know category. This causes me to study the question. I don't have all the answers. Every theological insight, every philosophical shift, even every scientific breakthrough begins with "I don't know." I may never have a completely satisfactory answer to others; but, for me I think it is the process that counts.
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
Well said. 'If Christ did not rise from the dead we are all dead in our sins' says St Paul. True or not it is one of the central tenets of our faith.
Wait a minute. what about all the "Touch and handle me, see that I have flesh and bones, not like a ghost" stuff? And the eating?
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
It’s quite hard, this physical resurrection body issue!
Going way back to Creation, I think the Traditional view is that death entered the world by sin and therefore the Adam and Eve bodies were not originally intended to die. So I think when Paul was writing 1 Corinthians 15 he was probably of the mindset that there was no problem in claiming that Jesus’ resurrection body was the same human body in which he lived on earth. Yet he would have been “raised incorruptible”. I wonder? Did he believe that Jesus, being both human and sinless, would not have died naturally? I don’t know from scripture for sure. He certainly died fully human . We also hear from scripture that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more, death “no longer” has dominion over him. All I can say for sure is that he saw some reversal of what we call the Fall going on through the death and resurrection.
What is clear is that Paul saw that resurrection as the first fruit of the final resurrection of the dead. And then we have this pregnant phrase. “We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed. Be raised incorruptible”.
So following Christ, when we are raised from the dead we die no more. We are raised immortal. Hence for eternal life with Christ or for eternal judgment.
Is that what he meant by we shall be changed? It must surely in some sense be our bodies too. The bodies we were born in were always going to die. Being raised incorruptible must surely mean some bodily change?
From our perspective, knowing more than Paul did about the human bodies we have, how they age naturally, how we die naturally, we find we have quite major “yes but how” questions about the final resurrection of the dead and the nature of our resurrection bodies. If we die as children do we remain children eternally for example? If we die old do we remain old? As much as I can understand it, we will be recognisably ourselves. And that’s it.
I leave my confused cogitations with a simple thought. Just as the resurrection of Jesus was a great miracle, so will be the final resurrection. But the exact nature of our resurrection bodies is a mystery to me.
It seems perfectly fine to me to have a reverent agnosticism about that question. Following that reasoning, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a reverent agnosticism about the exact nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. From that point of view the various resurrection accounts are mysterious. Jesus was recognisably Jesus. But not immediately in the Emmaeus account. There’s a mystery here. And Paul says about the final resurrection that he is telling us a mystery. He sure is.
As a reader of the X-Men I have no conceptual problems with a physical body appearing in a locked room.
Kurt was one of my inspirations in becoming a Christian in the first place, and I definitely related to Kitty when I started reading in at least 3 different ways. ❤️
We played 'Behold, I tell you a mystery' at my wife's funeral.
Wonderful stuff.
@Barnabas62 - apologies for being pedantic. I don't think anyone here is disputing that there were dissenting groups and those who did not 'conform' to prevailing norms and received orthodoxy in earlier times. Some have already been mentioned. Lollards. Hussites. Waldensians.
I was referring to 'non-conformist' in its more technical sense, relating to those who could not sign up to the Act of Uniformity.
I appreciate that you are using it in a broader sense.
If it needs saying, I have a lot of respect for 'orthodox Dissenting' traditions, as @Jengie Jon has helpfully defined them.
Heck, I also have a lot of respect for groups like the Quakers who may 'cross the line' when it comes to received orthodoxy. I'd also admire the inclusive and welcoming tone of Unitarian groups even though I am thoroughly Trinitarian in my theology.
On the 'heretic' / 'heterodox' / 'unorthodox' sliding scale, I'd define them as follows:
Heretic - knows what's 'orthodox' but doesn't care and rejects it.
Heterodox - retains elements of orthodoxy but with areas of 'personal choice' that may differ from the 'official' line. These views may go beyond accepted theologoumena in whichever church body or tradition/Tradition the person is involved with but not to the extent that they topple over into heresy. Where the line is drawn on that will vary according to which traditions /Tradition we are dealing with.
[i[/i]Unorthodox - I would use this in a milder way to refer to areas of custom and practice that may deviate from an agreed standard. 'Pastor So-and-So has a somewhat unorthodox way of taking up the offering on a Sunday morning ...', 'Fr Such-and-Such has a rather unorthodox way of organising the procession in his parish ...', 'The worship-leader has a rather unorthodox way of starting the medley of choruses used in their church's worship ...,' 'That organist has a rather unorthodox way of playing particular hymn tunes ...,' and so on.
Technically it’s anachronistic to use the term to describe earlier groups and I accept that criticism. I just know I’m right about the mindset. I’m in the tribe so I recognise the tribal similarity of the earlier groups. They do quack like a duck and walk like a duck!
I’m not sure the opposite of faith is certainty—I think it might, in the religious sense, be distrust. Lewis talks about this—when you’ve concluded something is true or that someone is trustworthy, you can get all kinds of temptations that aren’t real reasons to reconsider your conclusion, and holding fast to that (especially a person) is why faith in that sense is a virtue. But that could be its own thread.
You are misrepresenting me @ChastMastr. I said, "The enemy of faith is certainty." I can put it this way. The opposite of breathing is not breathing. The enemy of breathing is choking. Saying I oppose faith would mean I’m an atheist. Saying I’m facing an enemy of faith means I’m questioning a particular dogma — not rejecting faith itself.
The trumpets will indeed sound! Like you, I'm happy to stay with the mystery. Good enough for St Paul, good enough for me!
I really enjoyed the link - a splendid period trumpet wonderfully played. Wow!
A tangent.
Yes, I thought that was a great, joyful and moving recording.
Roderick Williams (a great bass) has talked movingly about the deep spiritual impact of singing religious music and his engagement with the music was obvious.
And the trumpeter! The Boston Baroque orchestra engaged the use of a natural, valveless, trumpet, often used with Baroque music. Very difficult to play, I believe, but on this occasion played sublimely well.
@Barnabas62, I think there’s some confusion about what I was talking about with regard to nonconformists. I wasn’t expressing confusion about what distinguishes nonconformists or anything like that. I was just noting that in a definition of “Evangelical,” it seemed strange and UK-centric to me to include “nonconformists” as part of the definition since, by definition, nonconformists as a discrete category exist only in the UK. There is no such thing, for example, as a “nonconformist” in a US context, because there is no established church for someone not to conform to.
Without question, Christians in other parts of the world may share many characteristics with British nonconformists. But categorizing groups as “nonconformist” can only happen in a British context. That was my point.
Comments
It's not denying the physical resurrection--I would place it more in the I don't know category. Look at the story from John's eyes. Mary Madalene had told the disciples the tomb was empty. Peter and the Beloved Disciple both race to the tomb see it and then what? They go home. In Luke, it says the apostles considered the report as nonsense. Then comes the appearance of Jesus behind the locked doors. That, to me, is much more important then an empty tomb.
If it was a purely physical resurrection, Jesus could not have suddenly appeared to the disciples. Paul gives us another clue, though. He talks about the resurrection of the spiritual body. The resurrection is still a body but it is transformed, spirit filled
I see that he was capable of entering a room without opening the door, but that doesn't rule out having flesh and bones. (And no living person is purely physical, pre or post-resurrection. If we were, we would be corpses.)
Well said. 'If Christ did not rise from the dead we are all dead in our sins' says St Paul. True or not it is one of the central tenets of our faith.
That sounds like vitalism. It isn't what modern biologists think.
It’s quite hard, this physical resurrection body issue!
Going way back to Creation, I think the Traditional view is that death entered the world by sin and therefore the Adam and Eve bodies were not originally intended to die. So I think when Paul was writing 1 Corinthians 15 he was probably of the mindset that there was no problem in claiming that Jesus’ resurrection body was the same human body in which he lived on earth. Yet he would have been “raised incorruptible”. I wonder? Did he believe that Jesus, being both human and sinless, would not have died naturally? I don’t know from scripture for sure. He certainly died fully human . We also hear from scripture that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more, death “no longer” has dominion over him. All I can say for sure is that he saw some reversal of what we call the Fall going on through the death and resurrection.
What is clear is that Paul saw that resurrection as the first fruit of the final resurrection of the dead. And then we have this pregnant phrase. “We shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed. Be raised incorruptible”.
So following Christ, when we are raised from the dead we die no more. We are raised immortal. Hence for eternal life with Christ or for eternal judgment.
Is that what he meant by we shall be changed? It must surely in some sense be our bodies too. The bodies we were born in were always going to die. Being raised incorruptible must surely mean some bodily change?
From our perspective, knowing more than Paul did about the human bodies we have, how they age naturally, how we die naturally, we find we have quite major “yes but how” questions about the final resurrection of the dead and the nature of our resurrection bodies. If we die as children do we remain children eternally for example? If we die old do we remain old? As much as I can understand it, we will be recognisably ourselves. And that’s it.
I leave my confused cogitations with a simple thought. Just as the resurrection of Jesus was a great miracle, so will be the final resurrection. But the exact nature of our resurrection bodies is a mystery to me.
It seems perfectly fine to me to have a reverent agnosticism about that question. Following that reasoning, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a reverent agnosticism about the exact nature of Jesus’ resurrection body. From that point of view the various resurrection accounts are mysterious. Jesus was recognisably Jesus. But not immediately in the Emmaeus account. There’s a mystery here. And Paul says about the final resurrection that he is telling us a mystery. He sure is.
Kurt was one of my inspirations in becoming a Christian in the first place, and I definitely related to Kitty when I started reading in at least 3 different ways. ❤️
While I was writing! And not just humming! Behold, I tell you a mystery
Glorious!
The trumpets will indeed sound! Like you, I'm happy to stay with the mystery. Good enough for St Paul, good enough for me!
I really enjoyed the link - a splendid period trumpet wonderfully played. Wow!
We played 'Behold, I tell you a mystery' at my wife's funeral.
Wonderful stuff.
@Barnabas62 - apologies for being pedantic. I don't think anyone here is disputing that there were dissenting groups and those who did not 'conform' to prevailing norms and received orthodoxy in earlier times. Some have already been mentioned. Lollards. Hussites. Waldensians.
I was referring to 'non-conformist' in its more technical sense, relating to those who could not sign up to the Act of Uniformity.
I appreciate that you are using it in a broader sense.
If it needs saying, I have a lot of respect for 'orthodox Dissenting' traditions, as @Jengie Jon has helpfully defined them.
Heck, I also have a lot of respect for groups like the Quakers who may 'cross the line' when it comes to received orthodoxy. I'd also admire the inclusive and welcoming tone of Unitarian groups even though I am thoroughly Trinitarian in my theology.
On the 'heretic' / 'heterodox' / 'unorthodox' sliding scale, I'd define them as follows:
Heretic - knows what's 'orthodox' but doesn't care and rejects it.
Heterodox - retains elements of orthodoxy but with areas of 'personal choice' that may differ from the 'official' line. These views may go beyond accepted theologoumena in whichever church body or tradition/Tradition the person is involved with but not to the extent that they topple over into heresy. Where the line is drawn on that will vary according to which traditions /Tradition we are dealing with.
[i[/i]Unorthodox - I would use this in a milder way to refer to areas of custom and practice that may deviate from an agreed standard. 'Pastor So-and-So has a somewhat unorthodox way of taking up the offering on a Sunday morning ...', 'Fr Such-and-Such has a rather unorthodox way of organising the procession in his parish ...', 'The worship-leader has a rather unorthodox way of starting the medley of choruses used in their church's worship ...,' 'That organist has a rather unorthodox way of playing particular hymn tunes ...,' and so on.
Technically it’s anachronistic to use the term to describe earlier groups and I accept that criticism. I just know I’m right about the mindset. I’m in the tribe so I recognise the tribal similarity of the earlier groups. They do quack like a duck and walk like a duck!
Don't forget I was part of 'the tribe' too for many years.
You are misrepresenting me @ChastMastr. I said, "The enemy of faith is certainty." I can put it this way. The opposite of breathing is not breathing. The enemy of breathing is choking. Saying I oppose faith would mean I’m an atheist. Saying I’m facing an enemy of faith means I’m questioning a particular dogma — not rejecting faith itself.
A tangent.
Yes, I thought that was a great, joyful and moving recording.
Roderick Williams (a great bass) has talked movingly about the deep spiritual impact of singing religious music and his engagement with the music was obvious.
And the trumpeter! The Boston Baroque orchestra engaged the use of a natural, valveless, trumpet, often used with Baroque music. Very difficult to play, I believe, but on this occasion played sublimely well.
As I said, glorious! Just glorious!
Without question, Christians in other parts of the world may share many characteristics with British nonconformists. But categorizing groups as “nonconformist” can only happen in a British context. That was my point.