Resurrection Misunderstanding
The Rev. Bryan Owen, on Christians who want to entertain the notion that the Resurrection never happened:
So why, if someone thinks that the resurrection of Jesus is a “misunderstanding” rather than the central claim of the Christian faith on which everything hinges, should we call ourselves Christians and soldier on for this “misunderstanding” (bearing in mind that predecessors and contemporaries have given their lives for this “misunderstanding”) with “ample reason to celebrate Easter.” If it’s a “misunderstanding,” a “mistake” that can be cleared up by other, more sensible, rational and enlightened means, why participate in liturgies that say otherwise? And why would anyone be willing to suffer and die for this claim when, after all, it’s a mistake? (If the martyrs had only known the truth, it would have saved them a lot of trouble!)
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- So Much Anger Over the Wrath of God
- Chesterton on the Meaning and Significance of Easter
- “Suffer the little children to come to me ...”
- Another UK Evangelical “Comes Out” ... for Jesus
- Christmas Sermon: Herod, Jesus and Us
- Scientific Evidence for the Virgin Birth of Jesus
- Ancient Evidence for the Date of the Nativity (pace, Pope Benedict)
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
6 comments
I recall a very long thread with Mr. DC Toedt on this issue and his view of the resurrection.
In Mr. Toedt’s world Jesus is dead, a mere human, who said some things that Mr. Toedt finds enlightening. But there are lots of humans who say things that some find enlightening, Abbot and Costello for example. Mr. Toedt has admitted that he believes almost nothing contained in the Creeds and whatever Christian he might self-define himself, he rejects the orthodox faith.
[1] Posted by Br. Michael on 7-17-2012 at 12:38 PM · [top]
Frankly, all you have to do is read the book of John - Jesus says in about 50 different ways who he is…you can’t possibly draw any other conclusion.
[2] Posted by B. Hunter on 7-17-2012 at 02:01 PM · [top]
Of course you can draw other conclusions. Nicky Gumble in Alpha said when you consider His claims, there are three possibilities:
1. He knew he wasn’t who He claimed to be in which case He was a liar and a fraud;
2. He wasn’t who He claimed to be but that that he believed that he was in which case he was delusional: or
3. He was/is exactly who He claims/claimed to have been.
Since His teachings were hardly those of a delusional person and He had nothing to gain from making fraudulent claims about himself other than scorn and persecution, the logical answer is He was who He claimed to have been.
[3] Posted by DaveG on 7-17-2012 at 02:32 PM · [top]
A person who struggles with doubt or is unable to clearly grasp what happened would still be a Christian, to my mind. If someone flat-out denied it I would advise he or she not receive Communion.
[4] Posted by A Senior Priest on 7-17-2012 at 10:25 PM · [top]
And DaveG. I believe the original source for this threefold choice is—C S Lewis.
[5] Posted by yohanelejos on 7-18-2012 at 06:18 AM · [top]
Dave G,
C.S. Lewis said this decades ago in his essay “The Shocking Alternative” in Mere Christianity. [As Mere Christianity is a compilation of three books which were based on his radio talks, this is probably not the original C.S. Lewis source but this book is certainly one of his most widely read]. Lewis’ description of the choices available to humans is in the last paragraph of the essay. I absolutely love the last three sentences:
As a result of reading C.S. Lewis’ book, I was faced with these choices. I realized I had to decide! I did. PTL!
I wonder how many people have been faced with this choice because of reading C.S. Lewis’ essay? and made the same choice I did? Anyone else influenced by C.S. Lewis’ book??
[6] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 7-19-2012 at 07:28 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.