Serious question for non-denom Christians

 :

4/15/2003 5:51 AM

steveR

Serious question for non-denom Christians So with the approach of Easter, I have a general theological question for any born-again or simply non-denominational Christians.     NOTE: I am not baiting, nor will I likely even respond. This is more of a personal survey I suppose.       Does the *truth* of the resurection of Christ have any bearing on your faith? In other words, if it was somehow proven that a man named Jesus was crucified two thousand years ago, but remained dead, would this lessen his message or sacrifice?     Is the resurection pivotal to being christian or just Roman Catholic (and it's assorted offshoot splinter groups)?     Lastly, what if Jesus were essentially a yogi and was able to put himself into a meditative state that allowed him to endure his afflictions, never really died (how much did the Romans really check?), and later escaped or was assisted out of the tomb?     Yeah, yeah. I was raised catholic but consider myself more atheist than anything now. Needless to say though, I can still be a bit, uh, conflicted. I'm growing into seeing the merits of some spirituality as is does seem to serve a purpose where logic and reason seem to fail.     Anyway, thanks for anyone who responds.     Peace and good fortune.     Shalom.

 

4/15/2003 4:45 PM

Skreddy

Thanks for your question, Steve. Yes; I think this issue is exactly the defining question of Christianity, period. So much so that Paul the apostle makes this promise concerning that fact and one's faith in it... "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (Romans 10:9)     Theologically, the resurrection is important because it speaks volumes about who Jesus is and it vindicates His entire mission and message.     Virtually everyone who claims to have witnessed Jesus risen from the dead died himself rather than deny that it really happened (all of the apostles were murdered/executed for their faith except John, who died in exile on the isle of Patmos).     Crucifixion was a common means of execution by the Romans, and the guards who nailed Jesus and the two thieves to their crosses that day were expert killers. Nobody gets out alive, I can guarantee you. Especially after hanging there for six hours, bleeding, suspended by nails in the wrists and feet, and then having one's chest pierced with a spear.     The resurrection wasn't an afterthought added to the stories about Jesus. Jesus is predicting it from the very beginning of His ministry; John the Baptist even introduces Jesus as the 'Lamb of God' (meaning the sacrificial lamb; an allusion to the Passover lamb from the book of Exodus, which provided the means of the Hebrews safety from the final plague of Egypt). The vicarious death of Christ is a central theme of the Bible, as is the deity of Christ. The resurrection is integral to both of those vital themes.     The apostles wouldn't have worshiped a dead man whose body they hid themselves; they certainly wouldn't have all gone to their deaths for that lie. The women who buried Jesus and were returning to do a proper job of anointing his body with spices and wrapping it when they found he had risen from the dead would certainly have been in a position to know if he had been dead when they buried him.     Bottom line: yes. The literal death and resurrection of Jesus is not just important; it is everything to Christianity. His literal, bodily ascension into heaven is interesting and vital too. If He were still walking the earth in an immortal body, then He couldn't pour out His Spirit on His followers. But His mission continues, not through His physical body, but through His church, empowered and enlighted by His own spirit.     I know the Roman Catholic church sucks (sorry folks; no offense, but I'm sure even Catholics have to admit...), as do a lot of churches. But don't let that poison your mind towards the Bible. Realize that they are two separate entities. And your upbringing in a church probably did not acquaint you with what the Bible actually says. I bet most of you who attended traditional church services as a child have never actually read the New Testament. But you assume you know enough to judge that it's fiction. You should take a closer look before you consign the Bible to irrelevance.     Personally, I grew up skeptical and sought God through philosophy and metaphysics, never to find Him. Then I was convinced to allow Jesus a chance at running my life, as I was doing a horrible job at it. I followed His instructions (did my part) and He came through with the promised results (did His part). I found peace and made actual conscious contact with the God of the universe for the first time ever through faith in the living Christ. I can't describe how awesome it feels to know God, but here's a short endorsement: it's better than sex. It's exactly that love and spiritual connection and total acceptance and security that we all long for; it's like coming HOME for the first time. It's knowing who you are and knowing that you're completely loved without reservation, and loving someone else so intensely that your whole body and mind are full of sweetness and joy and ecstacy. It's like having a tall cold drink after wandering in the desert. It's like diving into an ocean of pure life. It's like breaking all the bonds of time and space and emerging into the total freedom of eternity.

 

4/15/2003 4:53 PM

Mark Hammer

Not anything at all like a Christian myself (a little too circumcized for that) but I think you raise an interesting question which pertains to a lot of religions, some more than others.     The question is this: Is it sufficient to treat the narratives provided in sacred texts as "really inspiring analogies", or is there in some sense a sort of incompleteness in one's faith and faith-related behaviour should one not accept things literally. Is there "value added" by being literal, or conversely "value lost" by being too rational? Are you missing something when you *know* you're faking a belief in the literal simply for ceremony's sake?     I'm not about to celebrate Easter any time soon, but tomorrow night I'm going to be flinging drops of wine on my plate recounting the ten plagues of Egyt. Do I have to accept them as having happened to derive the full measure of this religious occasion, or is imagining them as having really happened simply a vehicle towards thinking less superficially about the issues raised?

 

4/16/2003 4:40 AM

Joe king

What shredky said! I couldn't explain it any better.     Although I feel I need to clairify some thing:   I personaly cringe at the thought of celebrating "Eastar" I prefer to celebrate the reserection   Easter is a pagan holiday, a festival of fertility named after the goddes Estar.it somehow got incorporated into the reserection celebrations.     I too am circumcized Not because I'm Jewish it's just standard practice here in the USA, just like this Easter thing.     It's good to qustion things we do.   I wish the folks in my church would rethink the easter egg hunts.

 

4/16/2003 5:11 AM

Ross M.

What's the big deal about Easter? I decided a long time ago I was an Atheist, but I still give gifts on Christmas, and give candy to my younger cousins on Easter. It seems to me more lke a tradition than a religious affiliation. Just a part of our past added by religion. Halloween is also celebrated by many churches with carnivals, should that be done away with because it was pagan-related? Not really. It's all in good fun and to give kids another day of the year to look forward to.     Really even Christmas is hardly reflective of Christiantity anymore, it's been commercialized and is pretty much a day you show your appreciation for friends and family with a gift or two. I think it's something that should never be done away with just because of personal beliefs about the validity of Christianity.

 

4/16/2003 3:42 PM

Joe king

I basicly agree with you Ross,these celebrations are just part of western culture. christmas and halloween included.   I bring these issues up just to promote thinking about the things we celebrate. But I never push the issues, I don't enjoy majoring in the minors.   theses Holidays started out as something special(good or bad depending on your views) but have been reduced by tradition to almost nothing... and So why make something out of nothing? well, because I personaly prefer pure worship over pointless celebratons but that's just me. I Highly value harmony whithin the church, so I don't get too vocal about these things.

 

4/19/2003 12:40 AM

LFOscalator

Mark, you raised a good issue:     "Do I have to accept them as having happened to derive the full measure of this religious occasion, or is imagining them as having really happened simply a vehicle towards thinking less superficially about the issues raised?"     I think the answer is clearly NO to the first half of your statement and YES to the latter.     I'm a Christian but I fully realize that a good deposition attorney could easily pick the New Testament to pieces by simply cross examining the statements individually made by Mark, John, Mathew, and Luke. Sure enough, inconsistencies abound.     But that's not the point. Rather, most sacred texts of almost any religion provide a collective wisdom that gives one insight into how to run one's own life for the better, as well as providing a vehicle through which one can transcend one's own limited and flawed human nature into having the ability to be in communion with and to be guided by God.     Recognizing the existence of a "higher power" has been documented numerous times as being a powerful and positive force that can change otherwise difficult personal behavior, albeit in ten step style.       LFO

 

Page 1 of 4

Next>

Last Page>>