Resurrection -- Belief Without Proof?

The recent Jesus Tomb debate raises the question -- what if you found the bones of Jesus, would that destroy Christianity? Would it undermine your faith? The answer it would seem depends. To a Marcus Borg, it would make no difference. To a NT Wright it would. The debate then centers on whether resurrection is a physical occurrence or a metaphor. If it is a metaphor for an experience that the Disciples had, then well, the physical remains are unimportant.
A reading of the New Testament doesn't give clear answers. Paul speaks of appearances but no empty tomb. he speaks of Jesus' body -- but a spiritual body -- not a physical one. But for Luke and for John there is very strong physicality to his appearances and yet remember Jesus' appearance to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, they don't recognize him until he breaks bread and then he disappears (Luke 24;13ff). So, this leaves things kind of up in the air, doesn't it?
I'm not sure that this resolves all the questions, but Paula Fredriksen at "On Faith"briefly outlines a third way of looking at things:
Modern Christians will sometimes insist that, interpretively, we have only two options: either the original disciples really did see the Risen Christ, or they were lying. But this is not so.

There is an obvious (and metaphysically more modest) third option, namely, that the original disciples really did think that they saw the Risen Christ. That belief can be true (that is, they really did believe that they saw Jesus) quite apart from the status of Jesus’ physical remains.

It is that belief – not the status of Jesus’ physical remains – that initiated and sustained the Christian mission. And it is that belief – not the status of Jesus’ physical remains – that embodied the original message of Christianity, that the Kingdom of God is at hand. What do any of these claims mean? It depends on how you interpret them. But it is this human webbing of belief and interpretation – not the status of Jesus’ physical remains – that defines and sustains Christian communities.

That’s the long answer to this week’s question. The short answer is, No.

Posted by Paula Fredriksen on April 6, 2007 10:39 AM

Comments

Mike L. said…
I like this answer(no surprise). I use to hang on the fence about this, but I think it was finally Borg's explanation of the gospels that freed me to feel good about this 3rd approach. I no longer see these stories as eye witness accounts, but instead I feel they are parables about Jesus. Jesus told parables about God so his later followers told parables about him. It just makes sense to me and causes all the theological problems to go away.

It also helped when I realized that other religions like buddhism and Islam also did this same thing. It even falls in line with the way Jews told stories about Abraham and Moses. It wasn't that they "lied", but they developed legends about their spiritual sources of life to compete with the legends already developed in Roman Impirial theology and to fit in with Jewish Messianic beliefs. I don't see that as some goofy davinci code conspiracy. I see it as deep admiration in typical poetic creativity. It is beautiful and natural. For me it doesn't reduce the importance of the story or of this week.
Anonymous said…
Hiya Bob,

Is 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 a metaphor? Boy, it seems as if we are still in our sins. But that's not an issue for those who think it foolishness or a stumbling block. Denying the resurrection in spite of the very deliberate writing of Acts is really trying to get out from under the fact that, if Christianity is separated from it's historical nature, is it just a philosophy. which is what you believe. Ashamed of the Gospel is not a happy place to be.

asebeia springs eternal!

Jason

Popular Posts