The Protestant Smackdown

Renew America ^ | 05/10/2005 | Adam Graham

[ZULU]

"Some Christians believe the resurrection was a physical event, and some believe that it was a spiritual event. So, can we come to some agreement about this by sitting down and talking about it? Maybe."

I thought all Christians believed Christ literally rose from the dead physically as well as spiritually.

Thre's that story about the apostle Thomas actually putting his hands in Christ's wounds. If he only rose spiritually, that would not be possible.

The only Christians I know of who might not believe in the physical resurrection are Gnostics and I don't think there are too many of those around.

[Grim]

So your position is that you can be a "Christian" and yet think that Jesus is a liar?

Didon! J'ai pas dit ca!

[littlelilac]

why?

when it comes to the Bible, ultimately you are taking man's word for it, even all the stories about Jesus are as observed and recorded by others,

so surely there is room for discussion on some points

Jewish scholars have argued over the finer points of the Torah for centuries, that's a good thing

[frogjerk]

If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, 'Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;' and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), 'He was taken up into heaven while they beheld,' as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works."

Justin Martyr,On the Resurrestion,9(ante A.D. 165),in ANF,I:298

[littlelilac]

funny though I bet Jesus would be the first person to disagree with you, I suspect even Jesus saw himself as flawed, which to me is what makes Him so special

he was humble and non judgmental

[ZULU]

"This is why the mainline Protestant Churches are declining while the evangelical Churches are thriving."

Evangelical Protestant Churches are growing while "mainline" Protestant Churches are foundering because the evangelicals believe in the basic tenets in the Bible. The Mainline Protestants have drifted away from theological awakenings and rebirths to feel-good, politically correct, all-inclusive mush.

A church CAN'T be all inclusive. It must have a body of basic beliefs and there can be no room for those who do not hold those basic beliefs. To become so inclusive as to tolerate every belief means you have no core beliefs. And most people need a belief system with core beliefs.

Christians all believe Jesus Christ is their personal Lord and Saviour. They all have their ethical roots in the New Testament and Old Testament as well.

[frogjerk]

The only Christians I know of who might not believe in the physical resurrection are Gnostics and I don't think there are too many of those around.

Unfortunately, they are making a comeback. Case in point, Hanoi Jane's claim to be Christian and then spouting on about how Jesus was a feminist and the whole Divinci Code garbage....

[ZULU]

Unitarians aren't really Christians. Unitarian fellowships wellcome atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, - you name it.

No core belief system.

[Vic3O3]

ping for an interesting read--perhaps we should copy it to Bryant?

[ZULU]

I've done some reading about Gnostics and I wouldn't consider her one. Gnosticism is a mystical belief system which is sort of like Sufism in Islam. Actually both belief systems have a lot in common and Sufis have been persecuted in the Islamic world as closet Christians.

I think Fonda is a first rate crack-pot.

[Grim]

If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it?

See I Corinthians (post 18)

[CAPTAINSUPERMARVELMAN]

The Catholics can have authoritative teachings because they have Apostolic Succession. The Pope is the heir of the Apostles in a direct line, and what he says is the official doctrine.





no they don't. The Papacy can not be traced to the Apostles at all because none of the Apostles were ever Pope nor set themselves up as such. The Papacy(Pontifex Maximus) is a creation of Constantine not Christ.

[Tribune7]

Get rid of the people who disagree with you and then discuss the issues you have in common.

Like FR? :-)

Actually, it's getting rid of people from a institution who reject the institution's fundamental orthodoxy, which is not merely reasonable but necessary.

Christianity (and FR, I guess) hold that there are absolute truths, hence the only propert way to deal with dissenters from these truths is through conversion, and degrees of segregation.

[lexington minuteman 1775]

You might want to check out a new book by some guy named RUTZ it's called "Megashift"He has research indicating huge growth in churches in third world countries that is basically off the radar because it does not come under the umbrella of any "recognized" Christian mission groups. Inotherwards these are indiginous church planters who are being very sucessful. And the only Bible they know is a very simple understanding of the New Testament just like the church in the Book of Acts. Since they have not been to seminary or effected by what German theologians etc. have been saying about literarary criticism, etc. They just preach Jesus saves. Rutz says this group will eventually outnumber mainline Christians. I wonder if that 51% of Methodist will see them coming?
Kind of exciting development methinks!

[Citizen Tom Paine]

I hesitate to stick my snout into this discussion, but there is a very important point being discussed. If you don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, you are not a Christian. These are not my words. To figure this out on your own see 1 Corinthians Chapter 15. Particularly, 1 Corinthians 15:12-18.

Paul said (NIV), "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."

Consequently, in my book, it is a simple test to separate the sheep from the goats. If you don't believe what Paul has written, you faith is futile, worthless, or useless. All you have to do is affirm Paul's statement.

[wideawake]

How then, to reconcile the apparent contradiction?

There is none. The resurrected flesh is glorified and imperishable. We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed.

Furthermore, since the original subject of this discussion is Christian unity, who shall be the final authority to settle the differences of opinion?

As always, the vicar Christ left behind as His deputy - the heir of Peter.

Failing this and falling back upon reason alone, then what C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity."

[wideawake]

Excellent point. Thanks for your contribution.

[wideawake]

why? when it comes to the Bible, ultimately you are taking man's word for it,

Incorrect. You are taking God's word for it.

even all the stories about Jesus are as observed and recorded by others,

More accurately all the stories about Jesus are as observed and recorded by others through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

so surely there is room for discussion on some points

The Resurrection is not "some point" - it is the point.

Jewish scholars have argued over the finer points of the Torah for centuries, that's a good thing

They haven't argued over whether the Torah is God's covenant with Israel.

And no, a secularized "Jewish" scholar who disputes this fact may be biologically Jewish - but he is not an adherent of Judaism.

[af_vet_1981]

Methodist-51%

The Methodists seem to have reached a majority consensus.

[lawdave]

no they don't. The Papacy can not be traced to the Apostles at all because none of the Apostles were ever Pope nor set themselves up as such. The Papacy(Pontifex Maximus) is a creation of Constantine not Christ.

Wrong. Peter is recognized as the first Pope by the Catholic Church. My Catholic Bible has the entire line of Popes set out in it in an appendix that goes all the way back to Peter. He was designated by Christ in Matthew 16:13-20. I have heard all the Petros/Petras arguments so spare me. Early Church Fathers (Christian writers) recognized the primacy of the Bishop of Rome before Constantine got into the act.