The Tension of Faith

So now I am in need... hmmmm You keep repeating that statement without addressing the point that I have raised more than once including the post to which you are responding.And you still have failed to point out anything that differentiates your beliefs from that of a secular humanist except that you attend a Christian church and call yourself a Christian.The Nicene Creed is made up of numerous statements of faith that stand alone. Just what is it that you don't take out of context. Help me understand.

A good start.The Nicene Creed is a series of statements of "beliefs" not of faith. The Nicene Creed in toto is a Statement of Faith.It even says "I(We) believe..."And in Message 371 did you or did you not post: Is that not taking pieces parts out of the Nicene Creed?Had I not already said on many occasions that I believe the Nicene Creed?Is the Nicene Creed a Statement of Faith of "Ghandians" whatever they are?It really is simple.Belief is not synonymous with Know or Fact or Truth or Reality.It is irrelevant whether or not the things that Christians believe are based on fact or reality.The vast body of evidence show that religions, faith, regardless of which specific one is examined, are simply wrong. There is no reason to think Christianity is any different. But that has nothing to do with what someone believes or what makes them a Christian.Believing the Nicene Creed is an element of Trinitarian Christianity.But there are also Unitarian Christians.Or are you still wanting to play the "True Christian Game"?

I found this on the internet which explains far better than I can what is meant by resurrection in the Bible, so I thought I'd send it along as well. Resurrection

quote:

---

The Resurrection of Resurrection

​

(N. T. Wright, Bible Review, August 2000. Reproduced by permission of the author)

​

Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenets, the resurrection of the dead, was widely recognized as false—except, of course, by Judaism.

​

Jews believed in resurrection, Greeks believed in immortality. So I was taught many years ago. But like so many generalizations, this one isn’t even half true. There was a spectrum of beliefs about the afterlife in first-century Judaism, just as there was in the Greco-Roman world. The differences between these two sets of views and those that developed among the early Christians are startling. Let’s begin with the Greeks. Some Greeks (and Romans) thought death the complete end; most, however, envisaged a continuing, shadowy existence in Hades. Homer, for example, tells of a murky world full of witless, gibbering shadows that must drink sacrificial blood before they can think straight, let alone talk. For Homer, Hades was no fun[1]. The soul in Homer, though, was not the real person, the immortal element hidden inside a body, but rather the evanescent breath that escaped. The true self remained lifeless on the ground.

​

But there are happier variations on the theme. For Platonists, death’s release of the soul from its prison was cause for rejoicing. And even within Homer’s scheme, some heroes might conceivably make their way to the Elysian fields, to the Isles of the Blessed, or, in some very rare cases, to the abode of the gods themselves. Hercules, then the Hellenistic rulers and finally the Roman emperors were believed to follow this route. Mystery cults enabled initiates to enjoy a blessed state in the present, which would, it was hoped, continue after death.

​

All, however, were agreed: There was no resurrection. Death could not be reversed. Homer said it; Aeschylus and Sophocles seconded it. What’s it like down there? asks a man of his departed friend, in a third-century B.C.E. epigram. Very dark, comes the reply. Any way back up? It’s a lie!

​

In Greek thought, the living could establish contact with the dead through various forms of necromancy; they might even receive ghostly visitations. But neither experience amounts to what pagan writers themselves referred to as resurrection, or the return to life, which they all denied. Thus, Christianity was born into a world where one of its central tenets, resurrection, was universally recognized as false.

​

Except, of course, in Judaism. Resurrection was a late arrival on the scene in classic biblical writing, however. Much of the Hebrew Bible assumes that the dead are in Sheol, which sometimes looks uncomfortably like Hades: The dead do not praise the Lord, nor do any that go down into silence (Psalm 115:17). Clear statements of resurrection are extremely rare[2]. Daniel 12 is the most blatant, and remembered as such for centuries afterwards: Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt (Daniel 12:2). Daniel is, however, the latest book of the Hebrew Bible.

​

In the postbiblical period, the Jewish group known as the Sadducees famously denied the future life altogether. The Sadducees, according to the first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus, held that the soul perishes along with the body (18.16). Other Jews spoke, platonically, of a disembodied immortality; according to the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, at death the philosopher’s soul would assume a higher existence, immortal and uncreated.[3] Still others appear to display some kind of resurrection belief, as in Josephus and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over people, and the Lord will reign over them for ever (Wisdom of Solomon 3:7-8)[4]. The clearest statements of resurrection after Daniel 12, however, are found in 2 Maccabees, the Mishnah and the later rabbinic writings. In 2 Maccabees, a martyr on the verge of death puts out his tongue, stretches out his arms and declares: I got these from Heaven, and because of his Laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again (2 Maccabees 7:11). According to Mishnah 10.1, All Israelites have a share in the world to come; and these are they that have no share in the world to come: he that says that there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.

​

Remember, resurrection does not mean being raised to heaven or taken up in glory. Neither Elijah nor Enoch had been resurrected in the sense that Daniel, 2 Maccabees and the rabbis meant it; nor, for that matter, had anyone else. Resurrection will happen only to people who are already dead. To speak of the destruction of the body and the continuing existence, however blessed, of something else (call it a soul for the sake of argument) is not to speak of resurrection, but simply of death itself. Resurrection is not simply death from another viewpoint; it is the reversal of death, its cancellation, the destruction of its power. That is what pagans denied, and what Daniel, 2 Maccabees, the Pharisees and arguably most first-century C.E. Jews affirmed, justifying their belief by reference to the creator God and this God’s passion for eventual justice[5].

​

The doctrine remained, however, quite imprecise and unfocused. Josephus describes it, confusingly, in various incompatible ways. The rabbis discuss what, precisely, it will mean and how God will do it. Furthermore, the idea could be used metaphorically, particularly for the restoration of Israel after the Exile, as in Ezekiel 37, where the revived dry bones represent the House of Israel.

---

If you are looking at it strictly as a matter of what God wants from us then I agree. It is the heart that he is interested in. I also agree that an atheist or a secular humanist can have a heart that is more consistent with my signature than many Christians. I’m not talking about who is going to be on the right side of God at the end of this life. What body of evidence is there that says the resurrection is not an historical event? The only evidence we have one way or the other is the NT and we can either choose to believe what is in there or not.
In the Nicene Creed we are stating that I (we) believe what I quoted above. You aren’t prepared to say that you believe those things to be historical. Obviously they were meant to be understood as historical. They may have gotten it wrong but I believe they got it right and you apparently don’t and say that it is immaterial. I agree. As I understand Unitarianism it is as much about semantics as anything else, and probably both of us could find some common ground with them.I don’t get your point, but I don't think that it's relevant.

Learn to read. It really is a necessary first step.No where do I say I don't believe the things to be correct. Sheesh.I do say that it is immaterial whether or not they are factual, true, correct or reality based.People believe lots of things that are NOT factual, true, correct or reality based. Too funny.There is NO body of evidence that Jesus even existed. The New Testament stories are all contradictory and show ALL the classic signs of evolving folk tales.You are back with the evidence nonsense.Belief is not based on evidence.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

You missed the part about Matthew 27:51 in Aussie’s Message 399.Percy

As a persuasive technique, this must rank near the bottom.Percy

I’m not sure we Unitarians should be considered Christians. I know that historically Unitarianism has been accepted as a branch of Protestantism, but given the direction Christianity in general has taken over the past century or two it seems almost as if Unitarianism is better viewed as a separate species. We don’t believe in the Trinity, nor in the resurrection, nor in the ascension, nor that Jesus was anything other than a man inspired by God. It gets a little complicated after that. There’s a patchwork of Christian beliefs that Unitarians do accept, such as the moral teachings, but they also accept Jesus as savior, leaving open the question of savior from what, since Unitarians don’t believe in original sin.I think it’s fine for anyone to accept Unitarianism as a branch of Christianity, certainly that’s where its roots lie, but the differences are very significant.In the 1950’s (I think) the Unitarians merged with the Universalists, and the result is not recognizably Christian, at least to me.Percy

I think it is a great example of how religions evolve. After all the whole concept of the Trinity was created as a means of labeling some Christians as "Not Real Christians" and so not in the Club.It is evolving dogma and as is usually the fact, more political than theological.Even Unitarianism itself continues to evolve.

Sorry. Forgot this one. Thanks Percy. Actually it all fits. Because of the resurrection the early Christians had to sort out what that meant to them by going back to their Scriptures and to what Jesus had told them both before and after being resurrected. This account is written only in the Gospel of Matthew and it is typical of early Jewish apocalyptic writing. It is the one Gospel that was specifically pointed at a Jewish audience.The point was that because of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus it met certain things. The Jews had believed that God could only be met behind the veil behind which was the holy of holies in the Temple, and then only by the chief priest. Matthew is saying that God was now not just accessible to the chief priest but was accessible to all.Many Jews believed that there would be a resurrection of the righteous at the end of time. Matthew is saying that because of the resurrection of Jesus it meant that the saints had been raised with Jesus. It is Matthews attempt at understanding what the resurrection of Jesus meant to and for his Jewish readers.

I'm not saying that the resurrection of Jesus wasn't different from the resurrection of Lazarus. I'm saying that your quibbling about the meaning of the word is wrong. Paul may have added a different spin to Jesus' resurrection but he doesn't get to dictate what English words mean.

I really don't care how some people interpret resurrection in the Bible. As I said, just Google "resurrection of Lazarus". You'll find that other people do use the word "resurrection" in reference to Lazarus.

Could you be a little more specific for me please? I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I think this is an important point in terms of how we approach Scripture.By "Matthew's attempt at..." do you mean "Matthew deliberately inserted a solitary metaphor right in the middle of an otherwise purely factual account", or by "Matthew's attempt at..." do you mean in the sense of "Matthew did his best but got it wrong here." ? I get the typology behind the rending of the veil as God opening the way for believers to approach the formerly off-limits Holy of Holies, and I'm surprised you didn't mention it was rent from top to bottom, usually said to signify that is was God-toward-man. But this whole act is steeped in type and shadow and metaphor, whereas it seems to be a reasonably straighforward statement following that states in essence, "After this, the graves opened and many of the dead saints came out alive."Could you please explain your approach to interpreting Scriptural metaphor vs, Scripture as fact? Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.

Fair enough. I meant to make the point that the Bible and other Jewish books have a more specific understanding of what resurrection means.Edited by GDR, : typo

It is my belief that Matthew is telling his Jewish readers what the resurrection means to them and told in the way things were usually told in that day and that culture. His point was that as Jesus was resurrected this is what it means. His view point was that it meant that God was accessible to everyone and that death had been defeated and that physical death is not the end.From the time of the resurrection onward the bulk of the NT is a case of the writers and others studying Jesus' life and words within the context of the resurrection to better understand the nature of God, what He wants of us and what He has planned for the future.I think that this is a case of that happening. Possibly there was an earthquake that that caused things like graves being opened and the veil being torn but it is my opinion that it was a case of Matthew using Jewish apocalyptic wring in metaphor or parable form to tell a spiritual truth. Firstly I understand the Scriptures this way. God inspired, (not dictated) men to write down their stories. In the Gospels Jesus is constantly referring to what was written in the Hebrew Scriptures, sometimes confirming them and sometimes correcting them. In order to understand Jesus in His Jewish context as told in the NT, the OT is indispensable. In order to understand the OT it has to be done through the lens of what Jesus taught.The key to it all is the resurrection. It is fundamental to the Christian faith. It is written about extensively in all of the Gospels and the book of Acts as well as being taken as a given in the Epistles.In this case the take away message that Matthew is giving to his readers is what I outlined above and as long as the message is understood, then whether he is talking in parables as Jesus so often did or describing an historical event is a matter of opinion. It seems to me that it is so much like other Jewish apocalyptic language that it is very reasonable to assume that it is a metaphor.