Was Jesus Christ's Resurrection a Physical Event?

[lpetrich]

A decade ago, Catholic theologian John Haught did an interview with Salon magazine, The atheist delusion. Most of it was on various other things, like where he claimed that a consistent atheist has to be a nihilist, but he gave us this zinger:

What do you make of the miracles in the Bible -- most importantly, the Resurrection? Do you think that happened in the literal sense?

I don't think theology is being responsible if it ever takes anything with completely literal understanding. What we have in the New Testament is a story that's trying to awaken us to trust that our lives make sense, that in the end, everything works out for the best. In a pre-scientific age, this is done in a way in which unlettered and scientifically illiterate people can be challenged by this Resurrection. But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning.

So is he trying to say that it's made-up to make people feel optimistic?

So if a camera was at the Resurrection, it would have recorded nothing?

If you had a camera in the upper room when the disciples came together after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, we would not see it. I'm not the only one to say this. Even conservative Catholic theologians say that. Faith means taking the risk of being vulnerable and opening your heart to that which is most important. We trivialize the whole meaning of the Resurrection when we start asking, Is it scientifically verifiable? Science is simply not equipped to deal with the dimensions of purposefulness, love, compassion, forgiveness -- all the feelings and experiences that accompanied the early community's belief that Jesus is still alive. Science is simply not equipped to deal with that. We have to learn to read the universe at different levels. That means we have to overcome literalism not just in the Christian or Jewish or Islamic interpretations of scripture but also in the scientific exploration of the universe. There are levels of depth in the cosmos that science simply cannot reach by itself.

What "conservative Catholic theologians" say that? And how long did they last before they were excommunicated? I'm baffled.

The more conservative and fundamentalist Xians believe that JC's resurrection was literal, historical, and photographable. You could have gone back in a time machine to JC's tomb, and you could not only watch him walk out of it, but also film him doing so.

Some liberal Xian theologians seem to believe that his resurrection was not literal, photographable history, that JC stayed dead in his tomb. But they often express that opinion in weaselly ways and try to camouflage their rejection with rhetorical misdirection, like talking about the experiences of JC's followers. And John Haught seems to follow in that tradition.

So what do such theologians think? That JC's followers had lots of vivid dreams about him, wrote down those dreams, and then misinterpreted those dreams as literal history? Dream interpretation is found elsewhere in the Bible, like in the story of Joseph and the Pharaoh in Genesis 41, so there might be some precedent for that.

 

[Politesse]

Why do you think that would be controversial? Jesus appears in the Upper Room, he doesn't walk in to it. That's Biblical, the account is clear that all the doors were locked. This is more consistent with a vision than with a zombie. So is the fact that no non-believers ever saw or interacted with the risen Christ. Whether you are "liberal" or "conservative" has no bearing on what position you might take on this issue; I remember a sermon at my VERY conservative bible school as a kid, which questioned the strictly physical nature of Jesus' post-resurrection body and drove home the point that the resurrection was more than just a case of divine CPR, rather a whole change in being. And I don't recall anyone being offended. It seems more a question of how much time you've spent thinking about the question than what camp you're in.

 

[James Brown]

Modern-day Christians say they can feel Jesus' presence, particularly during times of intense fellowship and prayer. Hell, I used to say that I could feel Jesus' presence. I don't see why the post-resurrection disciples couldn't say the same thing.

I distinctly recall having feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. In my circle of friends, there were always people who seemed more tuned in to the presence of Jesus, who exhibited classic symptoms of being in touch with someone they loved. They had no doubts about Jesus, they had no misgivings about their faith. To my mind, they were simply better Christians. And if I was in a prayer session in my dorm room with them, and if they started beaming that they could feel the presence of Jesus, I had no reason to question them. How could I? They certainly didn't appear to be faking it, and they were entirely trustworthy in other mundane matters.

Before long, having witnessed the sheer joy on their faces, hearing the wonder in their voices, it was very easy for me to say that I, too, could feel the presence of Jesus. "Jesus is here, in this very room. I can feel him in my heart. I can see his face. Jesus is alive and he is here."

Of course, he wasn't, not in any scientifically-verifiable way. No camera would have recorded another physical person in my dorm room, no body measuring so many inches and weighing so many pounds. But my college friends would have gone to the gallows testifying that they were in the presence of Jesus.

And I can easily imagine that what happened in my dorm room and in my Sunday School class and in countless scenarios also occurred in Jerusalem on Easter. Peter, having been shamed into denying Jesus, was desperate for redemption. When wracked with grief and dismay, when having seen Jesus crucified--instead of overthrowing the Romans and preparing positions of authority in Heaven for the disciples as he promised--when praying with such fervor as he never prayed before, then Peter "felt" something. The Mormons call it a burning in the bosom. In my Baptist church it was called the touch of Jesus on the heart. And having "felt" something, it's an easy leap to declare that, hey, Jesus is alive! Just like he promised and just like we so desperately want to be true!

And of course, if Peter is intensely convinced that Jesus is alive, it's not hard to imagine that other disciples would shrug and say, "Well, if Peter believes it--and he certainly looks as if he does--then who am I to disagree? Maybe there's something to it." Humans are herd animals. I've been convinced of something for no other reason than because a trusted friend was convinced first, all the more if it's something that would make me happy if it turned out to be true.

After that, details accreted onto the story. "I had a conversation with Jesus." "We had a long stroll with him without recognizing him." "Remember that time when he came here and ate supper with us?"

Of course, no true believer would accept such a hypothesis, but it's not for a lack of plausibility, to my mind. In the early 1990s, I let others convince me that Jesus was alive and in my presence. Why would such a thing be impossible around 30 AD?

 

[steve_bank]

The best academic response I heard was the gospels were written as promotional literatyre embellished of course.

 

[ideologyhunter]

How can you doubt it was a physical event? Remember, it wasn't just JC. "The tombs came open and many holy people who had died were raised again to life. They walked out of their tombs, went into Jerusalem and were seen by many people." (MT 27: 52-3.) What's not to believe in that?

 

[braces_for_impact]

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

I find this interesting. It's almost as if Jesus is a ghost here, but later, he does allow Thomas to touch him, specifically his wounds. I've seen various theologians try to explain this, basically as "touch" actually being translated more closely as "to grip or cling" indicating that Mary grabbed Jesus and didn't want to let him go; that he was telling her to back off because he has a job to do.

As a non-physical event that doesn't make much sense, and Jesus appeared to several different groups of people at different times (depending on which gospels you read) so that doesn't strike me as a non-physical event either. I think perhaps it may have started that way in early Christianity and developed to be a bodily resurrection as well as a spiritual one over time.

 

[couch_sloth]

John 20:17

Jesus said, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

I find this interesting. It's almost as if Jesus is a ghost here, but later, he does allow Thomas to touch him, specifically his wounds. I've seen various theologians try to explain this, basically as "touch" actually being translated more closely as "to grip or cling" indicating that Mary grabbed Jesus and didn't want to let him go; that he was telling her to back off because he has a job to do.

As a non-physical event that doesn't make much sense, and Jesus appeared to several different groups of people at different times (depending on which gospels you read) so that doesn't strike me as a non-physical event either. I think perhaps it may have started that way in early Christianity and developed to be a bodily resurrection as well as a spiritual one over time.

It might of started out as people believing Jesus had come back in a spirit form, and evolved into a physical resurrection.
Any Tom, Dick and Harry can come back as a ghost; Jesus needed something to make him seem special.

 

[James Brown]

I find it curious that so many of the post-resurrection appearances involve a case of mistaken identity.

 

[Politesse]

I find this interesting. It's almost as if Jesus is a ghost here, but later, he does allow Thomas to touch him, specifically his wounds. I've seen various theologians try to explain this, basically as "touch" actually being translated more closely as "to grip or cling" indicating that Mary grabbed Jesus and didn't want to let him go; that he was telling her to back off because he has a job to do.

As a non-physical event that doesn't make much sense, and Jesus appeared to several different groups of people at different times (depending on which gospels you read) so that doesn't strike me as a non-physical event either. I think perhaps it may have started that way in early Christianity and developed to be a bodily resurrection as well as a spiritual one over time.

You've never had a haptic hallucination? It is entirely possible for a vision to include physical sensations.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Modern-day Christians say they can feel Jesus' presence, particularly during times of intense fellowship and prayer. Hell, I used to say that I could feel Jesus' presence. I don't see why the post-resurrection disciples couldn't say the same thing.

I distinctly recall having feelings of inadequacy and jealousy. In my circle of friends, there were always people who seemed more tuned in to the presence of Jesus, who exhibited classic symptoms of being in touch with someone they loved. They had no doubts about Jesus, they had no misgivings about their faith. To my mind, they were simply better Christians. And if I was in a prayer session in my dorm room with them, and if they started beaming that they could feel the presence of Jesus, I had no reason to question them. How could I? They certainly didn't appear to be faking it, and they were entirely trustworthy in other mundane matters.

Before long, having witnessed the sheer joy on their faces, hearing the wonder in their voices, it was very easy for me to say that I, too, could feel the presence of Jesus. "Jesus is here, in this very room. I can feel him in my heart. I can see his face. Jesus is alive and he is here."

Of course, he wasn't, not in any scientifically-verifiable way. No camera would have recorded another physical person in my dorm room, no body measuring so many inches and weighing so many pounds. But my college friends would have gone to the gallows testifying that they were in the presence of Jesus.

And I can easily imagine that what happened in my dorm room and in my Sunday School class and in countless scenarios also occurred in Jerusalem on Easter. Peter, having been shamed into denying Jesus, was desperate for redemption. When wracked with grief and dismay, when having seen Jesus crucified--instead of overthrowing the Romans and preparing positions of authority in Heaven for the disciples as he promised--when praying with such fervor as he never prayed before, then Peter "felt" something. The Mormons call it a burning in the bosom. In my Baptist church it was called the touch of Jesus on the heart. And having "felt" something, it's an easy leap to declare that, hey, Jesus is alive! Just like he promised and just like we so desperately want to be true!

And of course, if Peter is intensely convinced that Jesus is alive, it's not hard to imagine that other disciples would shrug and say, "Well, if Peter believes it--and he certainly looks as if he does--then who am I to disagree? Maybe there's something to it." Humans are herd animals. I've been convinced of something for no other reason than because a trusted friend was convinced first, all the more if it's something that would make me happy if it turned out to be true.

After that, details accreted onto the story. "I had a conversation with Jesus." "We had a long stroll with him without recognizing him." "Remember that time when he came here and ate supper with us?"

Of course, no true believer would accept such a hypothesis, but it's not for a lack of plausibility, to my mind. In the early 1990s, I let others convince me that Jesus was alive and in my presence. Why would such a thing be impossible around 30 AD?

The interesting thing about this story (to me, at least) is that we could easily substitute any name for “Jesus” and achieve the exact same results. “Mohammad” for the easiest example; “Grandpa Bill” for another. “Xenu” for yet another.

Which of course betrays the actual mechanism for any such scenarios.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's a little silly to take the resurrection stories from Scripture and try to craft a scientific explanation which explains what those people thought they saw. It's sillier still to seek a scientific explanation for a true "miracle", which by definition, cannot be explained with current science and understanding. Perhaps it's silliest of all to demand physical evidence of an entity which has no physical presence.

It's perfectly sensible to say miracles and non-physical entities do not exist, but not sensible to demand evidence which cannot exist, based on the definition of the thing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's a little silly to take the resurrection stories from Scripture and try to craft a scientific explanation which explains what those people thought they saw. ...

Not necessarily, considering that many Christians argue that there could be no other explanation for the events depicted. Providing alternative, logical explanations to events that people declare could have no other explanation than “supernatural” or “divine” or the like is one of the main ways people deprogram from such cults.

Perhaps it's silliest of all to demand physical evidence of an entity which has no physical presence.

Except that Jesus is claimed to be just such physical evidence (i.e., a god incarnate).

It's perfectly sensible to say miracles and non-physical entities do not exist, but not sensible to demand evidence which cannot exist, based on the definition of the thing.

And yet, as was pointed out previously, there are several accounts in the NT where precisely that happens, the point of which is obviously to dissuade any other “doubting Thomases” among the sheep from doing likewise and questioning the authority of the cult. Pointing out such tactics can likewise help in deprogramming.

The trouble I always had with that story, however, is that it makes no sense. Aside from the fact that it reveals the suspicion, if not likelihood of fraud being perpetrated, it also reveals the fact that even back then people were savvy enough to know that just because someone was crucified and gave the appearance of death, it did not necessarily mean they were actually dead. Thomas isn’t convinced just be other’s say-so or just by seeing Jesus; he had to stick his hands in the wounds.

Plus, the author obviously thought he was pre-empting anyone in the “audience” too intelligent to buy the notion of Jesus resurrecting (in the exact same way that Paul insisted that a belief in the resurrection was paramount, or else there was no cult). Which means that there was a large contingent of cult members who never bought the central premise of the cult. Or, rather, Paul’s version of the cult.

So what was the original version; the version the supposed actual disciples were teaching (the ones who distrusted and rejected Paul and relegated him to the irrelevant gentiles)?

 

[Jobar]

It's a little silly to take the resurrection stories from Scripture and try to craft a scientific explanation which explains what those people thought they saw. It's sillier still to seek a scientific explanation for a true "miracle", which by definition, cannot be explained with current science and understanding. Perhaps it's silliest of all to demand physical evidence of an entity which has no physical presence.

It's perfectly sensible to say miracles and non-physical entities do not exist, but not sensible to demand evidence which cannot exist, based on the definition of the thing.

I agree, but Koy is right that there are believers who insist on the literal truth of the Resurrection tales, despite having no physical evidence- or anything, really, aside from the tales.

Science is simply not equipped to deal with the dimensions of purposefulness, love, compassion, forgiveness -- all the feelings and experiences that accompanied the early community's belief that Jesus is still alive. Science is simply not equipped to deal with that. We have to learn to read the universe at different levels. That means we have to overcome literalism not just in the Christian or Jewish or Islamic interpretations of scripture but also in the scientific exploration of the universe. There are levels of depth in the cosmos that science simply cannot reach by itself.

I remember when he said that- I objected then that he cannot demonstrate how science can't deal with emotions, or show depths that science cannot plumb.

By the way- isn't John Haught the brother of James Haught, well known atheist journalist? I met James in person once, at a meeting of the Atlanta Freethought Society.