Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 02-14-2008, 03:11 AM

This was a few months back, but it was so bizarre that I could not help but think about it.

Catholic theologian John Haught had an interview with Salon magazine, The atheist delusion. Most of it is not particularly relevant to this particular forum, like where he claims that a consistent atheist has to be a nihilist, but there are a few tidbits that are:

Quote:

What do you make of the miracles in the Bible -- most importantly, the Resurrection? Do you think that happened in the literal sense?

I don't think theology is being responsible if it ever takes anything with completely literal understanding. What we have in the New Testament is a story that's trying to awaken us to trust that our lives make sense, that in the end, everything works out for the best. In a pre-scientific age, this is done in a way in which unlettered and scientifically illiterate people can be challenged by this Resurrection. But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning.

So is he trying to say that it's made-up to make people feel optimistic?

Quote:

So if a camera was at the Resurrection, it would have recorded nothing?

If you had a camera in the upper room when the disciples came together after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we would not see it. I'm not the only one to say this. Even conservative Catholic theologians say that. Faith means taking the risk of being vulnerable and opening your heart to that which is most important. We trivialize the whole meaning of the Resurrection when we start asking, Is it scientifically verifiable? Science is simply not equipped to deal with the dimensions of purposefulness, love, compassion, forgiveness -- all the feelings and experiences that accompanied the early community's belief that Jesus is still alive. Science is simply not equipped to deal with that. We have to learn to read the universe at different levels. That means we have to overcome literalism not just in the Christian or Jewish or Islamic interpretations of scripture but also in the scientific exploration of the universe. There are levels of depth in the cosmos that science simply cannot reach by itself.

What "conservative Catholic theologians" say that? And how long did they last before they were excommunicated? I'm baffled.

The more conservative and fundamentalist Xians believe that JC's resurrection was literal, historical, and photographable. You could have gone back in a time machine to JC's tomb, and you could not only watch him walk out of it, but also film him doing so.

Some liberal Xian theologians seem to believe that his resurrection was not literal, photographable history, that JC stayed dead in his tomb. But they often express that opinion in weaselly ways and try to camouflage their rejection with rhetorical misdirection, like talking about the experiences of JC's followers. And John Haught seems to follow in that tradition.

So what do such theologians think? That JC's followers had lots of vivid dreams about him, wrote down those dreams, and then misinterpreted those dreams as literal history? Dream interpretation is found elsewhere in the Bible, like in the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh in Genesis 41, so there might be some precedent for that.

Toto · 02-14-2008, 01:13 PM

I take "entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning" to mean that it is a spiritual experience contained in the mind of the believer, which he feels represents a "higher reality."

At this point, a Christian might as well become a mythicist, like Tom Harpur.

Google turns up this Catholic: A Faith You Can Live With, By John O'Donnell, S.J., p. 46 (another 1 cent special from Amazon., who says that the appearances of Jesus should not be regarded as regular historical events that could be captured on camera. But Catholics are not literalists in general.

lpetrich · 02-14-2008, 06:45 PM

Toto, that's a reasonable hypothesis about what John Haught means.

And I wonder if such theologians are willing to embrace Dan Barker's Easter Challenge as "proof" that JC's resurrection was a spiritual phenomenon, and not a physical, photographable one. They could point to how those stories contradict each other because they were separately provoked, as it were.

Or even that they were made to contradict each other as a warning not to be too literal-minded.

mountainman · 02-14-2008, 06:50 PM

How close to the wind of docetic heresy
is christian theologian John Galt sailing?

paarsurrey · 02-14-2008, 08:21 PM

Hi

The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908, has also analyzed the account of NTBible in this connection and concluded with solid arguments that there was no literal or physical resurrection of Jesus, those who believe in it were ignorant of what had happened actually and were just mythical about it. He has stated this in his book "Jesus in India":

Among the testimonies of the Bible in support of Jesus' escape from death on the Cross is his journey to a far-off place, on which he started after coming out of the tomb. On the morning of Sunday he first met Mary Magdalene, who at once informed the disciples that Jesus was alive, but they did not believe it. Then he was seen by two of the disciples when they were going out to the countryside; and last of all he appeared to the eleven when they were at their meal and censured them for their callousness and lack of faith.

When two disciples of Jesus were going towards the hamlet called Emmaus which was at a distance of 3.75 miles from Jerusalem, Jesus met them; and when they were near that hamlet, Jesus went forward to part company with them, but they did not allow him to go, saying that that night they would be together. He then dined with them, and all of them, along with Jesus, spent the night at the village named Emmaus.

Now, to say that Jesus did all this with a spiritual body (which is supposed to be the nature of the body after death), which only the physical body was capable of doing, as, for example, eating and drinking, and sleeping, and making a long journey to Galilee which was at a distance of seventy miles from Jerusalem, is saying something impossible and quite against reason. In spite of the fact that on account of individual bias the accounts of the gospels have differed, the texts as they are, nevertheless, clearly show that Jesus met his disciples in the ordinary mortal human body, and made a long journey on foot to Galilee; showed his wounds to the disciples, dined with them at night, and slept in their company.

Now, here one has to consider whether, after acquiring an eternal spiritual body, i.e., after gaining that immortal body which entitled him, having been freed from the necessity of eating and drinking, to sit on the right hand of God and to be free of all wounds, and pain, and infirmities, it still suffered from one defect, although it had the glory of the Eternal and Ever-Existing God -- the defect, namely, that his body had on it fresh wounds of the Cross and the nails, which were bleeding and were very painful and for which an ointment had been prepared, and even after acquiring a glorious and an immortal body, eternally sound, faultless, perfect, and unchangeable, that same body continued to suffer from defects of many kinds: Jesus himself showed to his disciples the flesh and bones of his body, and again, not only this, but there were also the pangs of hunger and thirst -- necessities of the mortal body; otherwise, where was the need for him during the journey to Galilee to do such useless things as eating and drinking water, resting, and sleeping?

Undoubtedly, hunger and thirst, in this world, are painful for the mortal body, which may even prove fatal if they become extreme. So there is no doubt that Jesus did not die on the Cross, nor did he acquire a new spiritual body: rather, he was in a state of death-like swoon.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books...india/ch1.html

Thanks

WVIncagold · 02-15-2008, 06:13 AM

either that or 12 misfits pulled off the greatest weekend at Bernie's ever!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2008, 01:13 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I take "entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning" to mean that it is a spiritual experience contained in the mind of the believer, which he feels represents a "higher reality." At this point, a Christian might as well become a mythicist, like Tom Harpur. Google turns up this Catholic: A Faith You Can Live With, By John O'Donnell, S.J., p. 46 (another 1 cent special from Amazon., who says that the appearances of Jesus should not be regarded as regular historical events that could be captured on camera. But Catholics are not literalists in general.

02-14-2008, 06:45 PM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Toto, that's a reasonable hypothesis about what John Haught means. And I wonder if such theologians are willing to embrace Dan Barker's Easter Challenge as "proof" that JC's resurrection was a spiritual phenomenon, and not a physical, photographable one. They could point to how those stories contradict each other because they were separately provoked, as it were. Or even that they were made to contradict each other as a warning not to be too literal-minded.

02-14-2008, 06:50 PM	#4
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	How close to the wind of docetic heresy is christian theologian John Galt sailing?

02-14-2008, 08:21 PM	#5
paarsurrey Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 1,061	Hi The PromisedMessiah 1835-1908, has also analyzed the account of NTBible in this connection and concluded with solid arguments that there was no literal or physical resurrection of Jesus, those who believe in it were ignorant of what had happened actually and were just mythical about it. He has stated this in his book "Jesus in India": Among the testimonies of the Bible in support of Jesus' escape from death on the Cross is his journey to a far-off place, on which he started after coming out of the tomb. On the morning of Sunday he first met Mary Magdalene, who at once informed the disciples that Jesus was alive, but they did not believe it. Then he was seen by two of the disciples when they were going out to the countryside; and last of all he appeared to the eleven when they were at their meal and censured them for their callousness and lack of faith. When two disciples of Jesus were going towards the hamlet called Emmaus which was at a distance of 3.75 miles from Jerusalem, Jesus met them; and when they were near that hamlet, Jesus went forward to part company with them, but they did not allow him to go, saying that that night they would be together. He then dined with them, and all of them, along with Jesus, spent the night at the village named Emmaus. Now, to say that Jesus did all this with a spiritual body (which is supposed to be the nature of the body after death), which only the physical body was capable of doing, as, for example, eating and drinking, and sleeping, and making a long journey to Galilee which was at a distance of seventy miles from Jerusalem, is saying something impossible and quite against reason. In spite of the fact that on account of individual bias the accounts of the gospels have differed, the texts as they are, nevertheless, clearly show that Jesus met his disciples in the ordinary mortal human body, and made a long journey on foot to Galilee; showed his wounds to the disciples, dined with them at night, and slept in their company. Now, here one has to consider whether, after acquiring an eternal spiritual body, i.e., after gaining that immortal body which entitled him, having been freed from the necessity of eating and drinking, to sit on the right hand of God and to be free of all wounds, and pain, and infirmities, it still suffered from one defect, although it had the glory of the Eternal and Ever-Existing God -- the defect, namely, that his body had on it fresh wounds of the Cross and the nails, which were bleeding and were very painful and for which an ointment had been prepared, and even after acquiring a glorious and an immortal body, eternally sound, faultless, perfect, and unchangeable, that same body continued to suffer from defects of many kinds: Jesus himself showed to his disciples the flesh and bones of his body, and again, not only this, but there were also the pangs of hunger and thirst -- necessities of the mortal body; otherwise, where was the need for him during the journey to Galilee to do such useless things as eating and drinking water, resting, and sleeping? Undoubtedly, hunger and thirst, in this world, are painful for the mortal body, which may even prove fatal if they become extreme. So there is no doubt that Jesus did not die on the Cross, nor did he acquire a new spiritual body: rather, he was in a state of death-like swoon. http://www.alislam.org/library/books...india/ch1.html Thanks

02-15-2008, 06:13 AM	#6
WVIncagold Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: West Virginina Posts: 4,349	either that or 12 misfits pulled off the greatest weekend at Bernie's ever!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.