LeeBuhrul

(atheists obviously welcome to jump in)

Accepting for the sake of argument that:

1- There is a god and that it yaddayaddayadda
2- That it impregnated a virgin yaddayaddayadda
3- that the resulting child, Jesus grew up and yaddayaddayadda
4- that Jesus was nailed yaddayaddayadda
5- That 3 days after his death he was recalled yaddayaddayadda

Here's my question -

What's with the raising of the physical body itself? Xianity never claims the body comes from or goes anywhere other than dirt (dust to dust yaddayaddayadda)

Was it for effect?... If it was an attention grabbing special effect why then keep the event from the masses? wouldn't it have been far more effective to leave the body behind as a physical reminder?

And what happened to the body?

1-did it go poof when it reached a certain altitude?
2-is Jesus still inhabiting it?
3-is it kept in mothballs in a heavenly closet to be dusted off on his next coming?
4-is it in a cryogenics chamber in some space ship whose mission is to monitor earthlings for the right dip in our collective lowest common denominator to reenergize it and send it back here in a blazing chariot of fire?

Or is this all too silly to still be considered in the 21st century?
Where's the beef?

Zeichman

I want to say that I AM Christian, but I'm not at all interested in getting in a debate.

Are you asking about Jesus, or the idea of ressurection itself? My understanding is that it goes back to the Second to Last Century CE, with the Book of Daniel giving the first real mention of an afterlife/ressurection. The orthodox view of the ressurection is on the End of Days, when the Parousia occurs, all will be judged and sent to either eternal paradise or eternal punishment. Thus, Jesus is believed to have literally/symbolically done that which we will do.
As for the body, I think the best thing for a Christian to do is to argue from silence and say "That is the Mystery of God".

I think generally, though, people don't believe in the Day of the Ressurection any more, and find it anachronistic. Of course, fundamentalists, almost all evangelicals (including our WONDERFUL president) believe in the rapture, and thus the day of the ressurection. I certainly don't think most Christians feel it's a topic worth discussing: those who believe in it will, and those who don't do not.

Chili

It is not exactly like that Lee, but close. Here's to fill in some blanks of your yaddayaddayadda.

According to the Gospel of John the favorite disciple of Jesus stayed behind as the cosmic Christ and only Jesus left the scene with the promise that he would return to show believers how he will be their way (for baptized believers) when Christ is reborn unto them -- wherefore Christ needed to stay as the favorite disciple.

The idea that Jesus departed means that Jesus was the way but not the end.

The idea that this favorite disciple needed to stay indicates that Christ dwells among us. That this was not Peter's concern tells about the 'mystery of salvation' (let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing). Notice that Christ dwells among us is different from Judaism where the first coming of the messiah is still awaited, which, according to this reasoning, means that Jews cannot be born again or they are misled by the false Gospel . . . wherefore Peter was good(?) for Jews but not Paul's preaching that caused a riot since Rome and Nazareth are different places of origin (cities of God).

The idea that Jesus departed and that the favorite disciple stayed behind until Jesus' return (to show others the way) indicates that neither Jesus nor Christ have a corporeal existence wherein they can die or Jesus could not be the way to the end.

That Mary was 'placed' under the care of the favorite disciple shows that she was bodily assumed (sic) to be the light of life that departs with the second death when the body returns to dust. It proves that dust is dust and that light precedes life wherein Mary is the beauty of life retained in truth as the body of Christ through the work of human hands (or fuck would just be fuck).

From dust to dust suggests that life itself never was ours since it was before dust (God is infinite). That Mary can be our source of light suggests that we can be life for the light (Lord God is eternal), and that the sun shines to light up our common day suggest that we are temporal in our dust but the continuity of infinity nonetheless or 'we' would no longer be.

There is a little qualifier in verse 23 wherein Jesus never said that this disciple was not going to die as a "matter of fact." All Jesus said was that he wanted him to stay until his return to show "his way" to the believer unto whom Christ will be reborn. The word "reborn" signifies the preexistence of a certain death.

In this strict interpretation is it wrong to identify the second coming of Christ 'as' the return of Jesus who is only coming to show us the way and then go again (which will never be a universal event or he would not have left while leaving 'his' Christ behind). Here is a side note to direct your train of thoughts: John of the subconscious netherworld was the Alpha unto whom Jesus of the conscious mind was added with 'the woman' as the Omega to make Christ Jesus the Alpha and Omega in that age. With the departure of Jesus as 'the way' being 'one' attribute he returns in person to make manifest the woman of our age (as Omega) to be added to the Christ who is the Alpha born unto us in our age . . . so we might do greater things.

It is clear from this that Jesus as 'the way' is not historic (or he would not come again) but that it 'occurred' in history and will occur again.

LeeBuhrul

So do you believe in the resurrection or not?

Jaguar Prince

Jesus himself, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, says that resurrections are useless as far as securing faith is concerned...

Even if a man rises from the dead, they will not believe...

epepke

On the other hand, they will find it a lot easier to shop for groceries. So I suspect that rising from the dead would be a fairly important stage in one's death.

Chili

Resurrection makes it a comedy which is not what those who crucified him had in mind.

As for the spectators, it is most difficult to convince people that the very life they created and cling to is an illusion unless one is a poor man like Lazarus (and not just a poor man).

judge

Probably not correct. It can be inferred from the little avaliable commentary in genesis that Adam was capable of avoiding death in the beginning.
As Augustine wrote
We see this teaching in the NT as well.
In Hebrews 7
or even in
Romans 1
The Christ was raised Immortal (whereas before he had been able to experience death obviously).

By being raised it showed that his death had in fact been not desreved, so after he "tasted death" he was raised.

1 Corinthians 15

The transformed body is in heaven of course, where Adam would have gone had he passed " into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death.."

Zeichman

Of Jesus or the eschatological ressurrection?

On the former, I'm going to say that I'm sympathetic to the Empty Tomb Hypothesis, which I realize is dying out thanks to Dr. John Crossan.

On the latter: yeah. For various reasons, but mostly out of a resentment for the increasing amount of people who mix natural theology with Biblical theology. That said, I'm pretty much a universalist, so I'm not exactly offended by atheism, deism, agnosticism, etc. anymore.