First of all, this is a religious post. For those of you who are offended or bored by such things, I encourage you to go read something else - go have fun with one of the endless series of FAME OR SHAME games, which have spawned more spinoffs than STAR TREK.
But if you are a believer, or simply curious about faith, I invite you to peruse these reflections of mine . . .
THE RESURRECTION NARRATIVE
(Condensed from John's Gospel, Chapters 19 and 20)
"After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were accomplished, in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, said: "I am thirsty." A jar full of sour wine was standing there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop, and brought it up to his mouth. When Jesus had therefore received the sour wine, He said "It is finished!" and bowed His head, and gave up his Spirit. The Jews therefore . . . so that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the Sabbath . . . asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. The soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs; but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. . . . and so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a large garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had already been taken away from the tomb. And so she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said to them: "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him." Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they were going to the tomb. And the two were running together, and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter, and came to the tomb first, and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. Simon Peter therefore also came, following him, and entered the tomb . . . So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb entered then also, and he saw and believed . . .
But Mary stood outside the tomb weeping, and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, of where the body of Jesus had been lying. And they said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?"
She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him."
When she had said this, she turned around, and beheld Jesus standing there, and did not realize that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take Him away."
Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him, "Rabboni!" (which means, "Teacher!"). Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell my brothers: 'I ascend to My Father and Your Father; and My God and Your God."
As a rule, I try not to be preachy or talk about my faith constantly in the forums I belong to, since they are largely dedicated to other topics. But since they all allow for Off-Topic Discussion, and since Easter is the holiest day of the year for all Christians, once a year I allow myself to take the plunge and simply share a little bit about my faith and the reasoning – yes, Christians ARE capable of reason! - behind it.
First of all, I would like to point out that, more so than any other religion in the world, Christianity is based on historical fact. You can take away many of the stories of the lives of religious leaders like Muhammad and Buddha, and their religion would remain intact, since those faiths are based more on a set of teachings than on a person. But when you deny the stories the Gospels relate of Jesus, Christianity loses much of its coherence and meaning. I would postulate (and I knowmy friend AllHallows will disagree with this, but I like him anyway!) that this is because Christianity is really centered around, not the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The teachings of Jesus provide the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Christian faith, but it is his person – and particularly the Gospel's unique claim that He was "the Christ, the Son of the Living God" to quote Peter – that is the real basis of evangelical Christian faith, as it was taught and written by His disciples and practiced by the early church.
If Jesus was a mere human philosopher, he said and taught many things that are noteworthy and memorable – the sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, and so on – but He also said some things that are incomprehensible and borderline megalomaniacal. What human philosopher would say something like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through me"? Or "I am the Light of the World"? Or, "Before Abraham was, I AM"? Jesus clearly thought of himself as a supernatural being, and predicated all His teachings on that self-understanding.
Which brings us to Easter. If the tomb was not empty on the third day – if the crucified body of Jesus rotted in the ground, just like the rest of humanity – then his teachings were predicated on a falsehood, and the CENTRAL CLAIM of the early Christians, and of all evangelical churches to this day – is based on a lie. Christ's resurrection was both the payment due for the sinfulness of man and the victory over death that enabled mankind to also transcend death. Christianity, to this day, rises or falls with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is why every single attack on the faith ultimately comes down to an attempt to put Jesus back into the tomb. As long as Jesus is dead and in the ground, he can be ignored, like any other famous figure of history. But once the truth of the Resurrection is established, it becomes obvious that He was indeed, unique, and that He cannot be ignored.
I welcome discussion on this topic.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 04, 2010, 01:44:31 PM
As a rule, I try not to be preachy or talk about my faith constantly in the forums I belong to, since they are largely dedicated to other topics. But since they all allow for Off-Topic Discussion, and since Easter is the holiest day of the year for all Christians, once a year I allow myself to take the plunge and simply share a little bit about my faith and the reasoning – yes, Christians ARE capable of reason! - behind it.
All that must be true. If you insist. :smile:
Quote from: indianasmith on April 04, 2010, 01:44:31 PM
First of all, I would like to point out that, more so than any other religion in the world, Christianity is based on historical fact. You can take away many of the stories of the lives of religious leaders like Muhammad and Buddha, and their religion would remain intact, since those faiths are based more on a set of teachings than on a person. But when you deny the stories the Gospels relate of Jesus, Christianity loses much of its coherence and meaning. I would postulate (and I knowmy friend AllHallows will disagree with this, but I like him anyway!) that this is because Christianity is really centered around, not the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The teachings of Jesus provide the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Christian faith, but it is his person – and particularly the Gospel's unique claim that He was "the Christ, the Son of the Living God" to quote Peter – that is the real basis of evangelical Christian faith, as it was taught and written by His disciples and practiced by the early church.
I think our repartee of past Easters might warrant a review by you; I'm certain that my own perspective has always been a deep admiration for the humanity of JESUS CHRIST. His sacrifice can only be made more important by His own mortality: One thing is certain, He was a man.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 04, 2010, 01:44:31 PM
If Jesus was a mere human philosopher, he said and taught many things that are noteworthy and memorable – the sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule, and so on – but He also said some things that are incomprehensible and borderline megalomaniacal. What human philosopher would say something like "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one can come to the Father except through me"? Or "I am the Light of the World"? Or, "Before Abraham was, I AM"? Jesus clearly thought of himself as a supernatural being, and predicated all His teachings on that self-understanding.
Which brings us to Easter. If the tomb was not empty on the third day – if the crucified body of Jesus rotted in the ground, just like the rest of humanity – then his teachings were predicated on a falsehood, and the CENTRAL CLAIM of the early Christians, and of all evangelical churches to this day – is based on a lie. Christ's resurrection was both the payment due for the sinfulness of man and the victory over death that enabled mankind to also transcend death. Christianity, to this day, rises or falls with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is why every single attack on the faith ultimately comes down to an attempt to put Jesus back into the tomb. As long as Jesus is dead and in the ground, he can be ignored, like any other famous figure of history. But once the truth of the Resurrection is established, it becomes obvious that He was indeed, unique, and that He cannot be ignored.
I welcome discussion on this topic.
There is an arrogance in your commentary that I don't think your God warrants or that you recognize. You must also recognize the sacrifice that Christianity demands. As JESUS gave his life, so must all true Christians. I had asked you to recognize JESUS' humanity in years past, for its own merits, and at least you've modified to avoid "dead Jewish carpenter" or other belligerently entitled remarks. :thumbup: :smile:
I appreciate your responding, and I don't mean to come across as arrogance. I agree that Jesus' sacrifice can only be understood in light of his humanity - but I also feel that we forget at our peril He was also divine!
In all honesty, I have a feeling that we are, perhaps, much more alike than we are different - we approach the equation from opposite ends, but arrive at the same conclusion. Hats off to you, sir! :cheers:
Quote from: indianasmith on April 06, 2010, 10:53:40 PM
I appreciate your responding, and I don't mean to come across as arrogance. I agree that Jesus' sacrifice can only be understood in light of his humanity - but I also feel that we forget at our peril He was also divine!
"At our peril?" Why "at our peril"? I don't think JESUS will forget
His divinity...
Quote from: indianasmith on April 06, 2010, 10:53:40 PMIn all honesty, I have a feeling that we are, perhaps, much more alike than we are different - we approach the equation from opposite ends, but arrive at the same conclusion. Hats off to you, sir!
:cheers:
Nah... we're not alike at all. :wink: :thumbup:
Maybe not, then. Peace.
Quote from: indianasmith on April 07, 2010, 08:56:45 PM
Maybe not, then. Peace.
Okay, okay..., "uncle..." I mean "young man..." :twirl: :question: We aren't so-not-alike that we were the only two discussing Easter and the Christ. :smile:
And... you didn't answer my question. Why "at our peril"?
Having been a biblical student as well as a Sunday School teacher ~ I had Biblical Studies as a school subject and I taught a class at my church ~ I have always wished that Jesus, having risen, had revealed Himself to all when He arose. If that was done, no one would have had any doubts about life after death, not then and certainly not now. :smile:
Quote from: Allhallowsday on April 06, 2010, 06:59:05 PMThere is an arrogance in your commentary that I don't think your God warrants or that you recognize.
I have noticed that confidence and the consequent boldness of assertion often comes across (particularly on internet bb's) as arrogance.
QuoteYou must also recognize the sacrifice that Christianity demands. As JESUS gave his life, so must all true Christians.
Agreed: another demand is that Believers must commit based on
faith. Which may explain the basic essentialness of the apparent lack of 'proof' (sorry, Trevor!). Providing proof is generally taken as defeating the purpose, as I understand these things. In modern times it is often at least implied that faith and/or commitment arrived at by means of quantifiable and testable data is inferior and perhaps even not 'true' (since it was not arrived at by faith, and also may be shaken/changed by additional input?) Testing implies doubt; doubt implies the possibility of another way/interpretation. One is supposed to take (and pass) the test and overcome one's doubts with that proverbial 'leap of faith'.
Even the 'other side' could put on an impressive and persuasive light show. :wink: The idea is that we are to find it within ourselves to accept and commit because our
hearts say it must be so.
Just my amateur observations on the general issue.
I've been avoiding most of the discussions of politics and religion here lately, as they only lead to hard feelings. Indy, I appreciate your continuing efforts to improve your presentation of the Gospel to the board without compromising your beliefs. AHD, I can mostly see where you're coming from, and appreciate the civility with which you usually address Indy ("bonehead"s aside :teddyr:).
Since I come from a similar area/background as Indy, I think I might be able to address what he meant by the "at our peril" remark (though he is perfectly capable of answering for himself, and likely will). AHD, your point about Jesus' message aside from any religious context ("Treat others the way you want them to treat you" being probably the pinnacle of such remarks) being worth listening to is valid. It certainly makes for a better existence if we are decent to one another and look out for each other. I think Indy is saying that while Jesus' social message was/is central to His teaching, so was His "religious" message (i.e., that He was the Son of God on Earth, sent to be the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind). The messages are so intertwined that it is unwise to try to simply dismiss the spiritual aspect of Jesus' teaching. We do so "at our peril" in that we lose out on some of the greater long-term benefits of Christianity (i.e., eternal security, open communication with God, etc.). It is vitally important to recognize Jesus the man. He brought the culmination of the social message of the Bible. If you look at the overall trend of the messages in the Old Testament, they move from "death for any offense" to "an eye for an eye" to, slowly, "quit treating other people like crap." Jesus furthered that teaching by making the social message a truly spiritual one as well: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these the whole gospel depends" (paraphrased). It is also vitally important to recognize Jesus the Divine, partially for the reasons I mentioned above, but also partially because if Jesus was not who He said He was, His whole message, while not necessarily invalidated, does become more questionable. I always try to treat others with respect and love, but I am often taken advantage of and treated poorly. What benefit, then, is the Golden Rule if it only results in heartache for me as I observe it while others don't? No, I am not responsible for the actions of others, only my own, and I have to live with myself in the way that I act. But if I stop with Jesus' social message, I won't understand why I should bother with treating others well when they don't reciprocate. I am not one to focus my existence on the afterlife, nor do I do what I do to receive a reward in Heaven. That, to me, is a little on the short-sighted and selfish side. However, it is that eternal aspect that gives a deeper meaning to my choice of behavior, and that, at times, gives me the strength to continue to "love my neighbor as myself." It isn't the reward, but it is the significance of eternal (for lack of a better word) "consequences" of my earthly choices that lend strength to my choice of lifestyle (Christianity).
If I have misunderstood either Indy's message or AHD's question, I apologize; I mean no disrespect to either of you. I know I get on the wordy side, and so I have kept this response fairly short. If anything I said is unclear, that's why (that and I have an appointment I need to get to shortly :smile:).
And Trevor, I agree with your point, but it might compromise that whole "free will" thing a bit if God made things that obvious. :teddyr: It would be nice, though...
And while I was formulating my pontifications, Newt posted a good, and much more succinct, response. Thanks, Newt.
Here is one of my favourite poems: I think it relates to what has been said here - by all parties.
Abou Ben Adhem
James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784 – 1859)
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.
Quote from: Newt on April 08, 2010, 09:21:09 AM
Here is one of my favourite poems: I think it relates to what has been said here - by all parties.
Abou Ben Adhem
James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784 – 1859)
Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."
The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.
Newt, I have never heard or read this poem before. It truly touched me. Thanks
Quote from: Silverlady on April 08, 2010, 02:40:52 PM
Newt, I have never heard or read this poem before. It truly touched me. Thanks
Then it was worthwhile posting it. :smile: You are very welcome!
I had a VERY long and late day today, and spent a good part of it thinking how I would respond to AHD's question. I get home and find that both Newt and Derf have answered it pretty effectively. So I will just be brief and Scriptural:
I believe what Simon Peter said on the Day of Pentecost: "For there is no other name under heaven, given among men, by which we may be saved."
Acknowledging Jesus as a great teacher, and even trying to obey His moral code, is not sufficient, because we cannot manage perfect obedience. Acknowledging His divinity, and his sacrifice, is the key to salvation. He said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through me." Those words can only be true if he was indeed the Son of God.
That is my belief.
Quote from: Newt on April 08, 2010, 08:56:35 AM
The idea is that we are to find it within ourselves to accept and commit because our hearts say it must be so...
Exactly.
It's interesting how some postings, perhaps in answer to my own response, may perceive my commentary as the antithesis of
Indiana's. Fortunately,
Indiana and I do not have an irreconcilable difference, we just have different attitudes about what one has the right to expect of Christianity. I cringe at the notion that eternal reward is a good reason to behave well. :bluesad:
Quote from: Allhallowsday on April 09, 2010, 01:08:33 PM
Quote from: Newt on April 08, 2010, 08:56:35 AM
The idea is that we are to find it within ourselves to accept and commit because our hearts say it must be so...
Exactly.
It's interesting how some postings, perhaps in answer to my own response, may perceive my commentary as the antithesis of Indiana's. Fortunately, Indiana and I do not have an irreconcilable difference, we just have different attitudes about what one has the right to expect of Christianity. I cringe at the notion that eternal reward is a good reason to behave well. :bluesad:
Mostly, I've always taken your challenges to Indy's posts as attempts to make him/us think further about why we profess Christ, and I applaud anything that makes me think deeper about my motivations. The "notion that eternal reward is a good reason to behave well" isn't bad for new Christians, but for many who strive to deepen their relationship with God (okay, at least for me :smile:), the eternal reward aspect lessens in importance as a reason for behaving the way I do. It's nice to know that, in the end, I am eternally secure. However, I no longer treat others with love and respect because I think it will garner me crowns in Heaven. I do it now as a natural response because my mindset is more Christlike than it was when I was 16. I will agree with you that (if I have your notion correct) it is a sad thing for a person to behave only because "God is watching and will punish the sinners and reward the righteous." I think that is kind of covered in the Bible in Matthew 6, where he talks about practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them (if you do this, you already have your reward--people notice you). Likewise, if you practice righteousness only because God is watching, you've missed the point of transformation into the image of Christ. You are approaching God as a cosmic policeman, out to catch you and throw you in jail (hell, or wherever) for any infraction. That's not God/Jesus as presented in the Bible. One of the pivotal points of mankind's creation is the notion of free will. WE choose how to behave, and WE choose what to do with the sacrifice of Christ (or what not to do with it; it is also our right to ignore it or ridicule it). As a Christian matures, the Golden Rule becomes a natural, automatic response to interacting with others, not an attitude of "oh, boy, God saw me be nice! I'm gonna get some good stuff in Heaven now!"
Am I close to understanding your point, Allhallowsday?
It has never made sense to me that what one does out of fear, force or lack of choice can be said to have the quality of 'virtue'.
It's funny how one can 'find' universal truths in everyday undertakings: there is an oft-quoted passage in a famous horse-training manual by a Greek general named Xenophon (written 2300 years ago!) that contrasts the advantages of willing compliance vs. force.
"For what a horse does under compulsion...is done without understanding; and there is no beauty in it either, any more than if one should whip and spur a dancer. There would be a great deal more ungracefulness than beauty in either a horse or a man that was so treated."
Works for me.
Quote from: Derf on April 09, 2010, 02:33:08 PM
Mostly, I've always taken your challenges to Indy's posts as attempts to make him/us think further about why we profess Christ, and I applaud anything that makes me think deeper about my motivations.
In this you are correct. I agree with much of what else you have written,
Derf, but not all. I meant it when I indicated I agreed with
Newt in this regard: "...we are to find it within ourselves to accept and commit because our hearts say it must be so..." I have faith that it is worthwhile, in and of itself, to behave well, to be kind, and to give.
Hmmm... so, we must always be kind, and contrite when not, even to JESUS. I will point out that if JESUS was not a man, he was not our Savior.
Agreed, and what a great discussion!