Christ's Resurrection: Physical, spiritual or both?

I was quite surprised by some recent documentaries on Jesus's resurrection (see Decoding the Past-Resurrection) that some heated debate exists within Christianity on whether it was spriritual or physical. One school of current evangelicals believes that it must be physical to fulfill Biblical phrophesy (and promises of the future physical resurrection of the dead believers), and that without a very physical resurrection from the tomb Christianity is untrue. They would stress verses that describe Jesus eating fish, the "doubting Thomas" poking his fingers into His crucifixion wounds, and Jesus's own denial of being a spirit or ghost.
Others (apparently like the Jehova's Witnesses) would argue that the resurrection was spiritual, and point to Jesus walking through walls, or appearing in locked rooms. An argument goes that physical resurrection only proves resuscitation, and many people have been resuscitated after being entombed without any supernatural causes. It proves nothing on divinity, but a spiritual resurrection does.
But now I'm really confused, because some commentators seem to argue that the resurrection was both spiritual and physical! How can this be? Is this just a word game, or can people really say that to be Christians they can believe 100% that a "creature" roamed the earth which existed in a state beyond our comprehension?
In any case here is a person who argues in the dual resurrection. Perhaps this is not so different from Hinduism, in which the God Vishnu incarnates as Krishna; similarly both physical and spiritual, and not bound by material laws.

However, to say that the resurrection was an entirely physical resurrection may also lead us astray. I am a little concerned that in (correctly) opposing the 'spirit resurrection' teaching of certain of the cults, some evangelical writers seem to want to say that the resurrection was purely physical - but obviously this cannot be so and to say that the resurrection of Jesus was purely and wholly physical seems to be an example of having unwarranted confidence in the flesh, an approach which the New Testament would certainly reject!

www.ukapologetics.net...

Those who claim a wholly physical resurrection ignore the verses to the contrary www.carm.org... (and seemingly vice versa), and I wonder if people will go to hell because they play one word game or the other.
What about recently "saved" people who die and they haven't thought about it?








[edit on 14-5-2010 by halfoldman]

This is quite a long read, but it may clear up some of your questions:

www.leaderu.com...

Take a look at the page referenced and see if any of your questions are answered.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by jagdflieger]

reply to post by jagdflieger

Thanks for the reply, but I cannot access the site via this link.
Why not shortly explain the views expressed?

reply to post by halfoldman

Christ's Resurrection: Physical, spiritual or both?

This question seems unfinished...


Shouldn't one other option be considered as well..? That it never happened at all.


But, if I was a believer, I would hope it meant both...it would make my perception of reality much easier to stomach.

reply to post by halfoldman


Try the link now - I missed a typo in setting up the link - my apologies

reply to post by halfoldman


If by jesus you just mean the ability to treat every human being with compassion instead of being greedy, hateful and deceitful then i think physically and spiritually but this won't be happening soon. Jesus is only a metaphor, like a fictional character in a book where you learn a moral lesson.....oh wait he IS a character in a fictional book full of metaphors.


[edit on 14/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

reply to post by happygolucky

Sure, that is one possibility, although atheists should have no problem with the physical resuscitation argument. However, to argue it never happened would also require at least some proof that the story was concocted and who concocted it. So this fourth possibility also needs some explaining. It doesn't explain why it would be written by historical witnessess, and it doesn't specify whether just the resurrection or the entire historical Jesus narrative "didn't happen". A historical Jesus without some form of "resurrection" seems unlikely, since his followers changed from frightened hideaways into bold missionaries by some inexplicable event following the crucifiction. So exactly what did or didn't happen?

Of course my main interest is in how various sects within one religion use a conspirational discourse to delineate themselves as the truly "saved" by selective interpretation.

reply to post by halfoldman

Of course my main interest is in how various sects within one religion use a conspirational discourse to delineate themselves as the truly "saved" by selective interpretation.

Me too chief...and a good conspiracy that topic makes IMO. Though your OP did not seem to head in that direction.


O', and as far as this:

atheists should have no problem with the physical resuscitation argument.

They would indeed have a problem with that, but let's leave them out of this - they're as laughable as the zealots.

Gday,

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by happygolucky

 

Sure, that is one possibility, although atheists should have no problem with the physical resuscitation argument.

Only if one assumes Jesus existed.
Many people don't.

Originally posted by halfoldman
However, to argue it never happened would also require at least some proof that the story was concocted and who concocted it.

It's obvious -
Paul, and the author of Mark, Matthew, Luke etc.
The Jesus story is clearly crafted from the Jewish scriptures, the episodes in Jesus alleged life are echoes of OT stories. The various authors then changed and editted the stories to suit their religious beliefs - clear signs it's not history.

Originally posted by halfoldman
It doesn't explain why it would be written by historical witnessess,

There are NO historical witnesses.
Paul never met Jesus,
nor did Gospel authors, or the NT epistles authors.

Not one book in the NT was written by anyone who met Jesus - that is the view of modern NT scholars.

Originally posted by halfoldman
A historical Jesus without some form of "resurrection" seems unlikely, since his followers changed from frightened hideaways into bold missionaries by some inexplicable event following the crucifiction. So exactly what did or didn't happen?

Oh come on!
That is merely part of the STORY!

We don't actually have ANY evidence from ANYONE who actually met Jesus. What we have is some STORIES from long after the alleged events, by unknown people - much of the stories are clearly lifted from the OT.

You may as well argue :
"why did Aeolus follow Hercules if he was fictional?"
or
"why did Theoden and Boromir follow Aragorn if he wasn't real?"
or
"why did Hermione and Ron follow Harry Potter if someone just made him up?"

Because the alleged followers are part of the STORY - but they didn't exist anymore than Jesus did.


K.

reply to post by jagdflieger

Wow, thanks for that - I think my head is spinning a bit after that link!
A lot of theological jargon.
What I gather is that a "post-resurrection body" will be physical, united with the soul, but attuned to God's Spirit. So "heaven" is really an earthly re-incarnated physical state? What about all that "storing up treasure" in heaven stuff by paying your tithes and being good that evangelicals preach? Shouldn't they then be rather opening physical bank accounts for their future bodies risen from the grave (especially since they believe the end times are already upon us)? So a spiritual heaven is a myth? Just asking, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick with a quick reading.

Interesting how much effort is put into Paul's account and aligning it with a physical resurrection. The Pauline doctrine on women and gays seems more OT rather than Jesus, and yet this is simply preached and accepted willy-nilly, but on all things esoteric he gets a major extrapolation!

reply to post by Kapyong

Despite the lack of links and proofs, you argue that the whole Jesus narrative is a myth (and the resurrection not simply one faulty part there-of). That is fair enough and gives me an idea of your opinion and where you're coming from (unlike the post I was replying to, which was a bit vague).
You're a bit unclear on whether you then also regard the Old Testament as myth, that is did the NT authors (and the Gospels were certainly not written by the names ascribed to them - even according to most church history) steal from something genuine, or is it ALL myth?



[edit on 14-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by halfoldman
But now I'm really confused, because some commentators seem to argue that the resurrection was both spiritual and physical! How can this be? Is this just a word game, or can people really say that to be Christians they can believe 100% that a "creature" roamed the earth which existed in a state beyond our comprehension?

Maybe better to wonder why the bible didn't say anything about avatarial resurrection/incarnation.

It's reported that China banned Avatar 3D due to civil unrest issues, yet there were also sources that said the government censored it do to "spiritual" disagreements with the incarnate presentation:

Reincarnation is a potent idea in China, and Beijing doesn't want moviegoers to be reminded of the Tibetan belief that no one ever really dies. This faith is partly the reason why many Tibetans remain fiercely loyal to the exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, whom Chinese leaders believe to be a dangerous separatist. Even when he is old or frail, irresponsible or doddering, his followers worship him and, when his corporeal form eventually passes away, they eagerly await the discovery of the Dalai's new incarnation. Indeed, the state of the elderly Nobel laureate's health will be on many people's minds during U.S. president Barack Obama's expected meeting with him in Washington—slated for this month—a move that has already triggered gnashing teeth among Chinese authorities.

Source

Even I continue to argue that spiritual and avatarial experiences are separate meanings, yet I have relaxed to not argue the point as heavily as I use to... and... just let the magic wonders happen.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by dzonatas]

reply to post by halfoldman

What I gather is that a "post-resurrection body" will be physical, united with the soul, but attuned to God's Spirit. So "heaven" is really an earthly re-incarnated physical state? What about all that "storing up treasure" in heaven stuff by paying your tithes and being good that evangelicals preach? Shouldn't they then be rather opening physical bank accounts for their future bodies risen from the grave (especially since they believe the end times are already upon us)? So a spiritual heaven is a myth? Just asking, maybe I got the wrong end of the stick with a quick reading.

Well the concept of a physical body united with the spirit and soul can be hard for some to grasp. The point is that the resurrected body will not decay as our current bodies. Heaven will have a physical aspect as well as a spiritual concept. There will be physical bodies; however, they will have properties that are not associated with our current bodies (such as perfection). Now don't go burying your gold in the back yard in preparation for the return of Jesus. When that happens, most of the banks would have probably been vaporized already, Jesus will probably start all over again, and with a resurrected body, you don't nee much money anyway. Probably among the first things Jesus will do when He returns is to abolish the Fed.

Not exactly a resurrection. Near death, then the body is stolen by time travelers who want to revive him in the future, or if they couldn't revive him, then maybe clone him. These are the brightly clothed strangers at the Tomb. Will they (did they) succeed? We won't find out before we're dead, and certainly not after.

Also, after Jesus's supposed "resurrection," the Gospels say he was physically unrecognizable to his Disciples. Was he a different person? Was he another time traveler, perhaps a clone, who came back to complete the Gospels?

Time travelers.

I believe in reincarnation, and am curious about the earlier versions of Christianity that supported it. After all if you were god who would choose to live the life of a lab-rat? Would it be a new sole that's never done anything wrong, or it would you choose an older sole that had?

If Christ's return is physical, then reincarnation is the avenue I believe is likely (or perhaps even physically possible!).

I see no reason why reincarnation of ANY spirit can't take place, since the spirit of a person, is "the life of that persons character", and after death, every segment of that life continues to exists in abstract form. Therefore it turns out, the more people we have on earth, the more likely we are to witness another person who lives life nearly exactly as a modern-day Jesus Christ would. The recognition of this spirit would indeed be quite a revolutionary event in today's, modern, secular, western societies (so I guess the bibles Relevations might have this much right).

But if anyone (for now) starts claiming to be Christ, I'm more likely to think of them with the words "Anti" in front!!! Anyway don't you think, it would be a bit odd (as well as unoriginal) for the next Jesus Christ, to be calling himself "Jesus Christ"?
If i was born again, I'd probably (by preference) want a different name just for the heck of it. Also (when you're dead) you'd hardly want to get confused (in you're own thoughts) about the two different lives you'd, just have, lived!!!

reply to post by dzonatas

Indeed, in many non-Western cultures the physical/spirtual divide is not strongly or consistantly recognized. Dreams and trance visions are taken as non-different reality from material reality. In fact, the culture of the apostles may have been very similar.
As I mentioned in my OP, Krishna was believed to be materially incarnated, He enjoyed all the pastimes (also sex) materially, but He could also appear to many people at once, and perform many other miracles.
Graham Handcock writes in "Supernatural" how his visions induced by Shamanic methods became real - real discourses with real beings.
Jesus is certainly accepted as an avatar by many Eastern religious groups.
However, this is not the thinking encouraged by the churches.
To Christianity the exact nature of Jesus becomes crucial, not only to highlight its difference from other faiths, but also to deliniate internally between "official" doctrine and "cult" doctrine.

reply to post by halfoldman


Looks like resurrection was common place in the first century if the scriptures are taken at face value.
If the criteria for being a god is resurrection then then there were quite a few gods created at the time.

It goes without saying that, coming back from the dead ie the suspension of the laws of nature in the favour of some deluded people is highly improbably and perhaps it would be better to conclude that the alleged witnesses were just plane old mistaken.

The claim that this jesus character made some sort of sacrifice by suffering crucifixion (at his own behest!) is totally ludicrous.
As most are aware the purpose of crucifixion was for the victim to suffer as much as possible for as long as possible. Jesus was apparently crucified alongside two other men, they no doubt may have suffered for several days before dying yet jesus was taken down from the cross/tree within hours of being strung up.

It goes without saying that, if indeed a jesus was crucified he did not in any way suffer as much as his co-condemned. Considering that Joseph got jesus down pretty quick from a death that was supposed to have taken days not hours one can only conclude there is something not right with this tale bearing in mind the other two men would have witnessed this so would more than likely been pissed that he got off so lightly.

Given that joseph(who had influence with the romans) immediately had jesus entombed in his own family tomb and treated him with herbs and such, it's not too much of a stretch to consider the possibility that jesus was still alive at the time.

Apparently the fave execution of the jews was "burying/entombment whilst alive " this then opens the possibility of joseph seeking that the romans honor tradition and have jesus buried alive. And why not ? After all Pilate had apparently washed his hands of the situation so it shouldn't have bothered him too much how jesus was executed

So, here we have a reasonable possibility that does not require the creation of zombies or a 2000 year guilt trip.
Jesus is taken down whilst he still has some life left in him along with a couple of holes perhaps. He's whisked off to josephs tomb under the pretense that he would be executed the jewish way, where his wounds are treated, perhaps with the help of w few white garbed essenses (angels) renowned for their healing and probable ties with jesus.

Resurrection ? Blah ! The biggest conspiracy in history.




[edit on 14-5-2010 by piedsniper]

reply to post by halfoldman

Graham Handcock writes in "Supernatural" how his visions induced by Shamanic methods became real - real discourses with real beings.

Shamanic methods ????? The dude was taking hallucinogens what do you expect, there are plenty of junkies that make the same they just weren't smart enough to write down their experiences before their brains gave up the ghost.

reply to post by piedsniper

Yes he did, often in shamanic tribal settings.
Although it's perhaps a topic for another forum, he took certain plants, dangerous in other conditions, and came to all kinds of conclusions.
However, dreams and other visions that occur naturally are also seen as real by many shamanic cultures.
It was also mentioned in the documentary mentioned in my OP: the resurrection narrative may have started by people dreaming or having other visions about Christ. It started off visionary and became material through repetition and re-telling. That is a very likely scenario.

In fact, believers call all of scripture "inspired by God or His spirit". What was this process of inspiration - a voice in the head, an attraction to the divine, some plant, a dream or vision (mental illness by today's standards)?

Of course I'm not equating Hancock to the Bible, I was just saying that in other cultures there is no real divide between spirit and materialsim, no matter what techniques they use to achieve that world-view.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by halfoldman

 

If by jesus you just mean the ability to treat every human being with compassion instead of being greedy, hateful and deceitful then i think physically and spiritually but this won't be happening soon. Jesus is only a metaphor, like a fictional character in a book where you learn a moral lesson.....oh wait he IS a character in a fictional book full of metaphors.


[edit on 14/5/10 by awake_and_aware]

Well my personal meaning is somewhat agnostic and distanced, and I'm yet to be convinced either way. The "Pollyanna" type character you paint is uncomplicated and mythical - indeed a mythology.
The Biblical Jesus is not as one-dimensional. I always mention that he cursed a fig tree, demon-possessed innocent pigs, and condemned people for what their ancestors did:

Matt 23:31-33 "Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"

Who ever said He had to be all-loving?