Mortality
On Wednesday I went to the doctor to have three moles removed. The doctor had previous expressed concern about whether or not the moles were or could develop into cancer. I am still waiting for the lab results, but the entire situation has already been redeemed for good.
As I lay on the operating table awaiting the arrival of the doctor, I felt emotionally and spiritually exposed. I could not help but be overwhelmed by the enormity of my frailness. I am dust and ashes. My body is broken, and will someday cease to operate. Fear is of course a natural reaction to such thoughts, and I did briefly encounter fear, but confidence in Christ is more powerful. In such a needy place, I was forced to place my trust in our great God and King. While it is true that death awaits me, as it does us all, my loving Master has conquered death. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
-1 Corinthians 15:54-57 Since God has conquered death, removing its power, how should I respond? What does God expect of "the mortal [who] puts on immortality"? The answer is in the following verse... Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
-1 Corinthians 15:58 Death has no power for fear or threat over the believer. We must not lose sight of our assignment: to always abound in the work of the Lord. Am I concerned about skin cancer? Sure. I'd hate to have to go through the various treatments. Though my body will die, Christ has redeemed me and won victory over death. Therefore, I will abound in His good work, for eternal works don't perish like bodies do.
posted by Grant @ 8:53 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
"Death has no power for fear or threat over the believer."
Could this be why the belief was created?
Jason, I'm not sure I understand your question. Help me out if you can. By the way, how are you?! Long time no see.
To be as specific and concise as possible:
Given what I'm sure you already about the Jewish thoughts regarding the afterlife (or lack there of), do you find it difficult to believe that Christianity’s promise of “eternal life” is nothing more than a manifestation of peoples’ desire for redemption against the miserable state of their Earthly lives? In essence, the drug of the oppressed.
That's a common argument raised by those who refuse to examine the facts. Reading the passage I cited in context, you will quickly see that the basis for Christian belief in a material afterlife is the resurrection of Jesus. The early Christians did not merely reason and conclude that there must be an afterlife, but they had concrete evidence.
If you read the opening verses of chapter 15, the amount of first-hand testimony offered to the skeptic is overwhelming: After His death, a raised and enfleshed Jesus was beheld by Peter, Paul, the Disciples, and nearly 500 people at one time. Just in case you doubt the authenticity of the sightings or the testimony, Paul urges the ancient reader to investigate it for themselves by stating that most of those who saw the raised Jesus are still alive - so go ask them yourself, in essence.
Paul's argument, then, in chapter 15 is based upon the actual historical event of the resurrection of a dead man. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to disbelieve someone who tells me they will die and rise from the dead (destroy this temple...) and actually makes good on the pledge.
What I've shared is just a mere fraction of the evidence that shows Christian faith in a conscious afterlife is not myth to appease the masses, but belief mandated by actual events.
About your contention that 1st century Jews did not believe in an afterlife, you are only partially correct. Some Jews, in fact an extremely small sect during the first century, the Sadducees, refused to believe in an afterlife. They also rejected the possibility of angels and the authority of any book outside of the Pentateuch. During the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were anything but mainstream. In fact, the vast majority of Jews in Palestine believed that they would one day be raised on the Day of the Lord. For example, why would Jesus use the parable about Lazarus and Abraham if the people could not understand the concept or thought it wrong?
If you want to make assertions about the origins of Christian faith, please be extremely careful. God does encourage us to love Him with our minds, but remember that allegations and ideas do not equal truth. Make an argument with the evidence, always checking yourself for humility under the mighty hand of God. Blessings brother.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
“That's a common argument raised by those who refuse to examine the facts.”
*That’s a pretty bold statement considering your definition of “facts” are all sourced from a doctrine that’s validity can only be assumed. It’s this assumption that I’m curious about. I’m essentially asking you what your “faith” is based on.
Faith cannot be defined by logic. The historical accuracy of the Bible (like all ancient texts derived from oral traditions) has and always will be called into question, but that’s irrelevant. I’m really not questioning the existence of Jesus of Nazareth I’m questioning the way you perceive him. I’m asking you to respond as a human, not a trained theologian. Your vehement apologetic defense of Christianity laced with false humility is wholly unnecessary here. We don’t appear to have an audience, I’m only asking questions, and I am very familiar with your agenda. .
“Reading the passage I cited in context, you will quickly see that the basis for Christian belief in a material afterlife is the resurrection of Jesus. The early Christians did not merely reason and conclude that there must be an afterlife, but they had concrete evidence.”
*I’m not sure this provides a sound argument considering that Jesus was the Son of God and everyone else was not. Jesus was always perceived to be “more than human”. But none the less, you do not have the benefit of experiencing this evidence. Other than the secondhand written version of an oral tradition you have forced yourself to believe is true and subsequently defined the rest of existence by it’s content, there are no lingering physical evidences that this event occurred today.
“If you read the opening verses of chapter 15, the amount of first-hand testimony offered to the skeptic is overwhelming: After His death, a raised and enfleshed Jesus was beheld by Peter, Paul, the Disciples, and nearly 500 people at one time. Just in case you doubt the authenticity of the sightings or the testimony, Paul urges the ancient reader to investigate it for themselves by stating that most of those who saw the raised Jesus are still alive - so go ask them yourself, in essence.”
*This begs for assumption on many levels. I’m not a skeptic hellbent on disproving anything; however, this is still not substantial enough because it does not manifest itself physically to the person it is asking to believe. We are physical creatures who can only base TRUE beliefs on things we perceive through our senses. All these people are said to have had the benefit of Christ physically manifesting himself to them, we however do not.
”Paul's argument, then, in chapter 15 is based upon the actual historical event of the resurrection of a dead man. I don't know about you, but I find it hard to disbelieve someone who tells me they will die and rise from the dead (destroy this temple...) and actually makes good on the pledge.”
*see above
”What I've shared is just a mere fraction of the evidence that shows Christian faith in a conscious afterlife is not myth to appease the masses, but belief mandated by actual events.”
*An event to which I see no physical evidence of. The existence of people who believe a myth is not proof that the myth is valid (this is a general statement, I’m not quite ready to dismiss Christianity as being nothing more than a myth).
”About your contention that 1st century Jews did not believe in an afterlife, you are only partially correct.”
*I never claimed this statement encompassed all Jews
“ Some Jews, in fact an extremely small sect during the first century, the Sadducees, refused to believe in an afterlife. They also rejected the possibility of angels and the authority of any book outside of the Pentateuch. During the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were anything but mainstream. In fact, the vast majority of Jews in Palestine believed that they would one day be raised on the Day of the Lord. For example, why would Jesus use the parable about Lazarus and Abraham if the people could not understand the concept or thought it wrong?”
*Because Jesus was not speaking to an audience of Jews who did not believe in the afterlife. The one’s who didn’t probably just dismissed him.
”If you want to make assertions about the origins of Christian faith, please be extremely careful. God does encourage us to love Him with our minds, but remember that allegations and ideas do not equal truth.”
*Neither do assumptions not based on experience. Speaking of caution, I sometimes worry that the very fundamental (yet paradoxically underlying) belief in human exceptionalism that is innate in most religions is the very thing that is perpetuating the destruction of our habitat. But that’s a another conversation.
“ Make an argument with the evidence, always checking yourself for humility under the mighty hand of God. Blessings brother.”
*Cheers.
You do have at least a small audience. Just so ya know.
If God were to be fully understood, would he still be God? If all the answers laid before your eyes, would you finally feel the relief to say, ok...God is real?
I think that the bible has been proved enough for me. It's match to the Dead Sea Scrolls was a hell of an argument. I do not pretend to know very much, and certainly not even half as much as Grant, or Jason, or Trevor, but I do know that this life we live with Christ demands a certain amount of faith. You have to be willing to accept that you can't understand everything in order to relenquish your full self to this deserving deity.
I hope I don't sound like I have false humility. I know I'm an idiot.
Jason, you are quite right that the 1 Corinithians text does not physically manifest itself to whomever is being asked to believe. The reality of time is that we simply don't have the capability of physically experiencing every event. It's unrealistic to dismiss events as suspect (especially 2,000 year old ones) merely because we don't have a piece of the cross or the centurian's spear.
Now this does not mean that there is no evidence for the resurrection of the Christ. Do I wish we had a photograph of Jesus ascending to heaven? Sure. Do I wish we had sworn statements from everyone who was in Jerusalem during passion week? Of course. But such standards are far too high and unattainable. No such level of evidence exists for any ancient event that I know of.
What we do have is the written evidence found in the New Testament, early Roman writings, the works of Josephus, and the simple historical reality that something happened in the middle of the first century that created a new religious group. We do know without doubt that a substantial group of Jews broke away from mainstream Judaism. We also know that for the first time in recorded history some Jews began to see the resurrection as not merely an end-times event, but as an event that had already begun to take place. We know that core beliefs about God and resurrection began to change as a result of something in the first century.
The Greeks never believed in a bodily resurrection, so it's indefensible to conclude that the new movement's beliefs were sourced in paganism. In much the same way, the Jews (those who believed in resurrection, which as I mentioned earlier, was most of the population) believed that, at the resurrection, one would receive his or her body back. The Christian belief developed in the first century is totally different. Early Christians believed that resurrected people did receive a body similar to the old one (those who beheld Jesus in the Gospels recognized Him) but one that was all together of a different sort as well (it often took quite some time for even His dearest friends to recognize Him, He can vanish, etc).
--By the way, if anyone is really interested in hearing some of the arguments for and against the resurrection, take a look at N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God." The book is widely recognized as a standard of responsible scholarship and does and excellent job discussing things I could only dream of thinking about--
Like I said, you are right on the money about there being no physical evidence. I'm not asking you to dig around in the wilderness hoping to find a piece of Jesus' sandal, but I will ask you to confront the historical evidence that we do have. I'm sure you can agree that seeking out the validity of Christ's life and work is a worthwhile endeavor, so let's do it to the full.
Your response questioned my motivation several times. I was writing about my thoughts on my death and the comfort I have found in Christ when you asked your question, a legitimate one at that. I explained why I believe in Christ and why He offers hope. I tried my best to be honest and critical, dealing with the information before me. I do sincerely apologize for my tone at times - you know how we can get during argumentation :)
I do have a serious problem with one of your basic assumptions, however. Several times your post made it clear that I had "assumed" the Christian doctrines were true, was driven by an "agenda," "forced [myself] to believe," and "assumed" that the post-resurrection appearances are reliable. At one point you asked me to respond as a human, not as a trained theologian. I am struck by the fact that because I share a different view than you, I must have assumed mine. Truthfully, I have spent 6 years of my life studying these things in higher education because they do matter. Please do not characterize me as an uneducated apologist who merely defends the party line. I consider all things. I am not a country-bumpkin who just believes what mom and dad tell me. I have a serious personal stake in the merit of Christianity: I do not want to waste years of my life on a social phenomena with no basis in reality. Paul even commented that if the resurrection did not happen, our faith is baseless and we are to be pitied above all.
Jason, I have put countless hours into studying these matters. I am not a fool who has been convinced by some professor or even my parents to believe these things. I have not been persuaded by years of church tradition alone. Something happened 2,000 years ago that dramatically changed the course of history. Something happened 2,000 years ago that dramatically changed my heart.
Back to where this all started, I know I will die someday. I also know that the Lord Jesus has saved me and taken the full punishment for my failures. He is worthy of our praise - the one who holds the keys to life and death.
-I had to delete the previous version because of typos...sorry everyone.
Grant I will respond to the deatils of your comment when I have a little more time (hopefully sooner than later); however, I do want you to know that in no way am I accusing you of idiocy or claiming that your beliefs were simply born out of circumstance (my comment on "forced belief" was describing the neccesity of belief in scripture to every person who claims to be a Christian, and the ensuing means with how they go about reckoning it with logic). I am very aware that your are an intellegent person. I was simply addressing the tone of your post.
Andrea,
That was a very honest response, and was much appreciated. And don't worry about the false humility thing, you have nothing to worry about. An oh yeah, you're not an idiot either.
I started reading Anne Lamott's Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith, and I have found it thoroughly intersting. I'm only about 70 pages in, but her life and her approach to religion really makes you think. Have you heard of this book, Grant? I don't know if I fully recommend it yet, because I'm not finished, but so far it's good.
When are you going to post again?
Post a Comment
<< Home