Run -- don't walk -- to read Jim Arraj's new book on the resurrection.
- http://www.innerexplorations.c...omor/resurrecion.htm

You'll probably want to buy the book, as this one is a real keeper.

-----

A happy and blessed Easter to you all.

Phil

I took a look.. does look like a good read! This morning I was thinking about this one by Yogananda about the Resurrection, actually about the second coming of Christ within us. Have you heard of this one?
Katy

http://www.yogananda-srf.org/s...oc_frameset-des.html

I just read this book, again, for the second time. And I liked it, a lot.

I have enjoyed studying the different "proofs" and arguments for the Reality of God over the years. I like the old ones, like those of Anselm and Aquinas. And I like the newer ones, like those of Charles Sanders Peirce, Hartshorne, Godel and, more recently, Christopher McHugh. These logical formulations may not prove anything conclusively but they do clearly demonstrate the reasonableness of faith.

I always enjoy reading any musing on any topic by Jim & Tyra Arraj, including, most recently, this consideration of the resurrection and also Can Christians Still Believe?

The reason I mention the "arguments for the reality of God" in the same context as the life's work of Jim & Tyra is because there is the very same dynamic at play. And that dynamic is reasonableness.

One does not have to approach reality in the very same way as they do psychologically, philosophically, metaphysically or, even, theologically, in order to realize the value in their coherent body of work. Let me try to succinctly formulate why their work has had value for me.

In a nutshell, there have been all sorts of reactions to all sorts of influences, modern and postmodern, by scholars in all types of fields --- scientific, philosophical, psychological, metaphysical and theological. And I use the word reactions and not responses to suggest that there has been a rather uncritical rush to closure on so many fronts that inform our faith outlook.

It does not matter if the assault on essentials of the faith comes from capitulations to a radically deconstructive postmodern critique and misinterpreted encounters with the East, or from an arrogantly assertive scientism of the West, one can find the Arrajes admonishing all: Not so fast!

In this or that treatment of a plethora of timely topics, they do not claim to "prove" their metaphysics and theology conclusively; they DO properly aim to present and, then, inevitably and clearly succeed in providing, a set of eminently reasonable hypotheses, which reveal our faith essentials to be on firm footings, at least on par with, but more often even more compelling than, alternate takes on reality. Whether one agrees with their specific approach or not, one should always take away the lesson and encouragement to explore alternative explanations, especialy those consistent with our time-honored traditions and long-established core beliefs.

quote:

So, one invitation that I think anyone could take away, from this work and others by the Arrajes, is to use your imagination ! And, when you do, be coherent and consistent, philosophically rigorous and scientifically aware (and theologically circumspect). jb

And this is something the so-called liberal consensus in the Church needs to pay attention to. If, in the past, the Church struggled with modernism, such as with an often sterile and naive scholastic realism, then some, nowadays, are doing no better in their naive embrace of a scientistically-inspired belief in the death of metaphysics, which is every bit as premature as the proclamation of the death of God (especially once considering that we still need to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity and that can't be done without going meta! ).

If, in the past, we used our metaphysics to prove too much, nowadays, we must avoid the reactionary temptation, which is to say nothing at all about the essential mysteries of our faith. And what needs to be said can be said using common sense constructs, both physical and metaphysical, as well as, metaphorical and analogical (try doing theoretical physics without those linguistic devices!). Jim and Tyra do just that. They keep saying what really needs to be said.

Truly,
jb

Well said, JB (good to see your name in "lights" again ). I feel very much the same about Jim and Tyra's work. The overall spirit is apologetic, but it's backed by scholarly and careful research, critical reflection, and a loving spirit.

This book on the resurrection is now the "standard" apologetic work on the topic, imo. It leaves no stone unturned in examining the various objections to the resurrection while leading one to conclude that the best explanation for the story is that it probably really happened!

Fascinating post, JB!
And with such warm recommendations from you, Phil and Katy, I�m feeling a growing need to check out the authorship of Jim Arraj.

By the way, has he published the whole book online?
What marvelous generosity! If so, that must be rewarded by the purchase of a paper copy!

HP, see the post at the top for the link to the book online. It is indeed a most generous gift by the Arrajs.

Yes, I saw that and clicked.
It wasn�t really a question, just wonderwent and appreciation out loud.

From the conclusion of The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus :

quote:

All this, however, does not and cannot compel us to believe any more than the seeing of Jesus during his life compelled people to believe in him. What we have done, hopefully, is to clear away the obstacles to our consideration of the invitation of faith.

Neither those believers, who primarily quest after the "historical" Jesus, nor those nonbelievers, who'd like to deconstruct Christianity's foundations altogether, get this.

Apparently, they think that our faith in God and belief in Jesus primarily derive from 1) empirical evidence for the resurrection, 2) eyewitness accounts 3) empty tombs and 4) Gospel miracle stories. Of course, these angles need to be properly considered, but one must go beyond the empirical, exegetical and historical to an encounter that is also eschatological and experiential.

And this is where both the so-called "liberal consensus" (within the Church) and the nihilistic voices of disbelief (outside the Church) miss the boat. Thus it is that they ignore some of the Church's central claims, failing to address some of its essential core convictions about our God-encounters.

Our [1] God-encounters are deeply intimate and profoundly personal [2], very much human, very much divine [3], and ultimately & powerfully efficacious in being utterly transformative [4]. Thus it is that the Holy Spirit, then and now, communicates life in our personal experiences of just such a transcendent energy. The Holy Spirit is why anyone, then or now, would say Jesus is Lord.

All of this entails, in a Word, theosis, other aspects of the Christian faith remaining necessary but not sufficient without it. In other words, the Resurrection Event is an inference that springs from a LOT more experiences, both then and now and yet to come, than many "historical Jesus questors" seem willing and/or able to take into account.

pax,
jb

[1] Mystical Body
[2] Abba
[3] Jesus
[4] Holy Spirit

JB - "Thus it is that the Holy Spirit, then and now, communicates life in our personal experiences of just such a transcendent energy. The Holy Spirit is why anyone, then or now, would say Jesus is Lord."


Excellent, JB. We recently went through a course in our church which attempted to "prepare" us for discussion with unbelivers (in the name of evangelism) on issues such as the resurrection, the existence of God etc. All the usual stuff - eye witness accounts, historical records etc. A bit of a struggle when what you really want to impart is something of the soul's joy in the light of divine revelation. All you summarise in [1] - [4], this experience of God through the working of the Holy Spirit speaks out as the real basis of true belief. It's rather like a thirsty man coming across a spring of clear water as opposed to one sitting in a library reading about precipitation levels in the Mojave desert over the past 50 years.

Thanks, Stephen.

Namaste,
JB

LOL! I see who you're reading these days.

I've read Jim Arraj's new book on the resurrection weeks ago, and I've read it again today. I find his take on the "bodily resurrection" unpersuasive both in terms of his scripture exegesis and his understanding of biological science. His comes off as an enthusiastic controversialist: His exegesis more provocative than inspirational, his science more fanciful than weighty. But I do agree with him about meaning of the bodily resurrection of Jesus:

"It means God takes us as we actually are with all our wounds and weaknesses, imperfections and sins, and wishes to redeem the whole of us."

And although I count myself among "historical Jesus questers," I agree with Johnboy that "one must go beyond the empirical, exegetical and historical to an encounter that is also eschatological and experiential." The experience of personal transformation that points toward the telos of "bodily resurrection," is the wind in the sails of my faith.

Ryan, could you give a few examples about the specific issues you had problems with?

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
[qb] Ryan, could you give a few examples about the specific issues you had problems with? [/qb]

Jacques, thanks for asking.

Arraj argues that the resurrection emptied the tomb; not so much that Luke thought of it that way, by virtue of its connection to Jewish apocalyptic hope (seen for example, in Daniel 12:2: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth willl awake, some to everlasting life...) but rather that it really happened that way, and that it was, in the language of a modern of biology, an empirical fact, in principle, photographable.

Historically speaking, I see no reason to argue that the tomb was emptied by the resurrection. Who knows what we would have seen if there had been a video cam running in the tomb? Maybe the grave was emptied by the same people that crucified Jesus, maybe they thought a decent burial was too good for him and they burned the body. Acknowledging that a historical possibility shouldn't shake our faith.

One reason historical critics would assume that the tomb was emptied by something other than the resurrection itself is that they view that as either impossible or at best too improbable to be considered seriously. Arraj would argue that it is not impossible. He talks of bodies that resist decay as if that were evidence. The connection seems tenuous at best. Critical historians can't prove that some miracle contrary to nature as we know it didn't happen, but they sure can say it is improbable. And Arraj seems uncomfortable with improbable, needlessly so, in my opinion.

I find myself wanting to ask why do you doubt that it did happen that way, does there have to be an alternative explanation?

Christian Theology basis much of its content on the fact that Jesus really did resurrect. It is the precursor to our own resurrection. Like Paul says , if the resurrection didn't happen then our faith is pretty much dead.

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
"...why do you doubt that it did happen that way..?"

Real resurrection, yes. Empty tomb? Not necessarily. Paul made no reference to an empty tomb.

I think I already made it clear "why I doubt" Arraj's thesis. I don't think you are responding to what I actually said. It appears you are sympathetic with Arraj's apologetic angle. Is that so? That takes me a little by surprise. Wishful thinking I guess, but I thought maybe you asked for clarification because you found something appealing about what I was saying. Now it appears that you were merely trying to get me to see the error of my ways. Ugh. I'm feeling a bit upset, mis-understood.

I'll restate, but I don't expect you to agree. Honestly, based on your response above, I don't expect you even to consider it long enough to understand. But, you asked, so here goes again, in different words: I doubt that resurrection is literally (I emphasize, literally) what emptied the tomb because such a claim is, on the face of it, far-fetched, contrary to what we know of "natural law". And, on critical inspection of the issue by Christian theologians (that you apparently have not read or don't even count as "Christian") it has become clear that such a claim is not necessary for faith. Like so many decayed bodies of saints, Jesus' body could have been cremated and still raised by God. Need that possibility be a problem? For me, it is not.

Sorry, it was not actually that I was sympathetic with Arraj's view as such (I have read and enjoyed other works by Arraj, but have not read the work on the resurrection).

I was actually just asking out of interest regarding how you understand the resurrection as I assumed Arraj was defending the traditional Christian understanding and it appeared you were advocating something more modern that seemed to contradict this traditional view.

While I respect that you have other views regarding this account, I am interested in why you feel you don't agree with the gospel account. I mean, yes, of course the notion of a literal resurrection is contrary to what we know of "natural law", but I have always thought of the event to be quite unnatural in that regard, rather supernatural i would say

I have not read anything related to the resurrection as non-literal and so am no expert to be debating this subject, just asking regarding your own opinions. Perhaps you could direct me to something online that would highlight the main points of an alternative explanation. I'm probably not really understanding what you mean by a "real", but not "literal", resurrection.

Hey Ryan,

I see you edited your post after I responded above. And regarding the length of time I'll take to consider your view, give me some credit. It is 12:02am where I live and I just spend 20 minutes waiting to see if you would reply to my post.

I love learning more and enjoy being challenged to think outside of the box regarding my preconceived ideas about Christian Theology. This really is a new concept for me though, that is why I asked you to explain.

I enjoy interacting with you, so please don't feel bumbed that I mis-understood. I tend to misunderstand a lot anyway. But if I do I will keep asking

I would love to wait another 20min to see if you will reply, but I am really tired now and I have a full day ahead of me tommorrow (i mean today), so goodnight, will check in again when i wake up.

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
I enjoy interacting with you, so please don't feel bumbed that I mis-understood.

Ok Jacques, that makes me feel much better.

You wrote: "Perhaps you could direct me to something online that would highlight the main points of an alternative explanation."

I have not studied the topic online, except for reading Arraj's paper (I like his writing in general too.) My suggestion for "further reading," if you have the time, is simply to read Arraj's paper. It is an A++ paper. And very entertaining at times. But when you read it, take a close look at especially the critical biblical interpretations he opposes. Of course, he is not going to portray them in the most favorable light. Then, if their points of view have any appeal for you from what you read there, follow-up somehow, preferably in a well-stocked theological library. That is how I learned about this topic back in High School: I first read papers opposing such "heretical" views, and strangely enough, felt drawn to them. They just seemed to fit more with common sense awareness of the material world on one hand, and to have a more sophisticated sense of literary interpretation as well. I then went to the library, then to seminary and so on.

As for my personal views, I think I'll take a rest.

Warm Regards,

I've read Arraj's text and discussed it with him during the writing process. His views are similar to mine in this matter, so I don't mind engaging the discussion in depth if some would like to do so. My own book on the resurrection is posted on this site and is similar in perspective to Arraj's.

A few points worth mentioning, here, with the hope of further discussion.

1. It's pretty clear the tomb was empty, as the corpse of Jesus would have constituted irrefutable evidence against the resurrection, reducing the appearances to a quasi-spiritualist pheneomenon.

2. It's illogical that the Apostles would have removed the body, then joyfully rushed out to proclaim resurrection, dying for this belief.

3. Arraj's reference to the preserved bodies of Saints and mystics isn't offered as evidence for the resurrection -- as though the resurrected body is a resuscitated corpse, of sorts -- but of the transformative power of the Spirit in human flesh. These "incorruptibles" offer a kind of witness to the resurrection, but not evidence for it.

4. There's no consensus among modern Scripture scholars concerning the implausibility of resurrection, in the sense proclaimed by the Church. It's obvious that the early Christians believed Jesus was risen, body and soul, and that his resurrection wasn't a mere recusitation. This does indeed go beyond the normal course of things, which is why it considered such a wonderful, glorious event -- a miracle, really. Scripture scholars and exigetes who deny that the early Christians believed thus are in a very small minority.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Scripture scholars and exegetes who deny that the early Christians believed thus are in a very small minority.

Aporpos to what scripture scholars and exegetes are saying early Christians believed concerning the nature of the resurrection body, it so happens, I have at hand a short but sweet bibleography:

Paul's Concept of a Spiritual Body
by Peter Lampe
In Resurrection : theological and scientific assessments / edited by Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, Michael Welker.

The Empty Tomb in the Gospel According to Mark
By Adela Yarbro Collins
In Hermes and Athena : biblical exegesis and philosophical theology / edited by Eleonore Stump and Thomas P. Flint.

The Resurrection (of the Body) in the Fourth Gospel: A Key to Johannine Spirituality
By Sandra M. Schneiders, I.H.M.
In Life in abundance : studies of John's Gospel in tribute to Raymond E. Brown, S.S. / edited by John R. Donahue.

Read 'em and weep.

Lampe was my New Testament teacher at Union Seminary in Virginia and I heard both Yarbro Colins and Schneiders, at separate conferences, present their papers. My comments so far on this thread do not begin to do justice to the quality of scholarly weight these three fine exegetes have brought to the question at hand. Each of these scholars have moved beyond the tired old liberal/modernist debate; they are serious about entering into the thought-world of the authors, Paul, Mark and John respectively and reading each distinctive voice carefully. But don't take my word for it. Make your own assessment.

Phil, would you like to read these articles with me?

From Ryan: Aporpos to what scripture scholars and exegetes are saying early Christians believed concerning the nature of the resurrection body, it so happens, I have at hand a short but sweet bibleography:

Selectively short? There are also many exegetes and theologians who support the orthodox viewpoint, as I'm sure you know.

Ryan, I've read a great deal on this topic, including Brown's works. One of the first books I read in 1973 after making a Cursillo (the beginning of my adult faith journey) was Brown's book on "The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus." When writing my own work on the resurrection some 13 years later, I researched the topic deeply, including numerous exegetes. Brown supports the traditional view of bodily resurrection.

Above, you wrote: That is how I learned about this topic back in High School: I first read papers opposing such "heretical" views, and strangely enough, felt drawn to them. They just seemed to fit more with common sense awareness of the material world on one hand, and to have a more sophisticated sense of literary interpretation as well.

Ryan, why use criteria like "common sense awareness of the material world" to evaluate the Christian belief in resurrection? And, as noted above, literary criticism doesn't necessarily lead away from the orthodox belief. Which of those four points I enumerated above do you find problemmatic?

(Thanks for the offer to study, but time constraints trump in this case. I'll keep up the discussion, however.)

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]...why use criteria like "common sense awareness of the material world" to evaluate the Christian belief in resurrection? [/qb]

I'm not sure. It is what makes sense to me. If someone says a person died and literally raised from the dead, that defies common sense. I'm reminded of the story of the king with no clothes. The boy who said, "you are naked," was simply using common sense. Likewise, with respect to resurrection from the dead, common sense says, "that cannot be literal." Why don't you accept common sense?

Ryan, is it just the resurrection that you find difficult to take literally, or is it every miracle in the bible. The stoping of the son, the turning back of the shadow I.e. time, the miracles performed by the prophets and by Jesus?