Nota bene

Ron, Now that I read this, I feel as though I should get a little more angry at Cameron's foolishness. I think it was Rousseau who said something along the lines of: "I know well my laziness...if only I had the time...I would sit down and right a treaty with her." BTW, I really enjoy your commentary and wish I had been reading you a lot earlier. Very Best, -jp

Christianity Today has a good response on this today: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007 februaryweb-only/109-33.0html The RCC has an advantage over the many other churches in that they can speak with one voice on these matters. Christiandom is very fragmented with few authoritative voices.

Woo. Any Christian whose faith would be even nudged by something like this has bigger issues. :)

3 simple questions- Who's DNA was used for any comparison? Will Cameron be analyzing the origins and history of the founder of the "religion of peace", that peaceful,respectful, 50+ year old man who consummated his marriage with a 9-year old girl, any time soon? How about the Rock in Mecca, which was venerated by Arabs well before Islam(it's beleived to be a meteorite). Muhammad expropriated that, along with all kinds of fractured and partial things from the Old and New Testaments. Don't hold your breath. Liked him better when guys are bouncing off stryofoam during "Titanic". What a freaking dolt. That's about as nasty as it's gonna get, Susan. Look-no riots, no fatwas, no death threats. Most of us just think he's another huckster looking to make a buck by defaming Our Lord; take a ticket. So when the media again compare Christians to the Taliban and Islamofacists, remember this. And say a prayer for Cameron's soul, because he, Dan Brown and their ilk are going to answer for this in the great beyond. Meantime, they figure to keep making schlocky movies. Don't watch them.

I haven't spent a lot of time researching Cameron's find, but it strikes me that a lot of people are rejecting it outright because it conflicts with their version of faith. I'm not saying he's correct, but it seems to me that we should at least examine his claims objectively before dismissing them. The idea that his research is an attack on Christianity seems a little hysterical to me. He seems to be only looking for the truth. If I state that the laws of gravity would indicate that Mohammad did not, in fact, float up into the sky, is that an attack on Islam, or is a mere statement of observable fact?

to me, the supernatural NT stories have been long established as Myths... To me, they have not.

"Flying Jesus is surely Myth... his body decomposed somewhere..." 'If Christ is not raised, we are of all men most miserable' -- St. Paul If there is no Resurrection there's no reason to be a Christian, pace Kung, Borg, Crossan, et al. Might as well become a Unitarian-Universalist, or even an Episcopalian.

That was glib - allow me to explain what I mean... "If there is no Resurrection there's no reason to be a Christian," implies that the reward to be gained from Christianity is life after death. Yeah, that's one heck of a bargain, to be sure. Except, it's not the only reward. Much of what Christ had to say had to do with how to live together in the here and now. Practically every utterance he made was about how sacrificing one's self, one's pride, one's station, one's standing, one's riches - etc, would help us live better, spiritually alive lives. That's a reward that comes in the *now*. It's my opinion that "the Resurrection" being the cornerstone of a faith makes for a selfish faith - one concerned solely for the state of one's personal soul. The remainder of the Christian story, sans resurrection, makes for a selfless faith - once concerned more for the state of our fellow humans. Just my opinion, of course :)

I find Paul to be the source of much of the divisiveness within Christianity, so I steer clear of him. To each his or her own :)

Oh, so you love the sweet, lovable, non-judgmental hippie Jesus but hate the bad old dogmatic Paul???? Okay, swell. But bear in mind that if you discard Paul and stick just to what Jesus said... 1) You have to obey Mosaic law. Remember, Jesus followed Mosaic law his whole life and never once suggested that Mosaic law was no longer in force. It was that old meanie Paul who said it was no longer necessary to follow Mosaic law. So, if you're a "Christian" who rejects Paul, you'd better be circumcised, you'd better wear a beard, you'd better keep kosher, and you'd better adhere scrupulously to all of Moses' sexual prohibitions. 2) If you weren't born Jewish, you can't be a Christian. Remember, Jesus never preached to Gentiles, and his immediate followers made very little effort to convert goyim. It was that old bigot Paul who argued that the Word had to be spread to all nations. So, if you're Irish or German or Italian (or anything but Jewish), you have no place in the Church Jesus founded... unless you're willing to admit that maybe Paul was right.

If there is no resurrection you have lived in vain. All life is worthless. Some people say: "I will live on in the memory of the people who loved me." No, you won't. I do genealogy on the side and can attest that most of my ancestors that I know about are nothing more than names. Don't know a thing more about them. They only go back to 1750 or so and before that it is a complete blank. I don't even know the names. So go back from then to the very beginning of man and it is a blank slate. And even if you were someone's memory, that's not YOU. Try it for yourself: see if you can experience someone else's knowledge of you right now. You can't. Some say, "My life is worthwhile because of my contribution." You fool. You think your contribution will be remembered even 100 years from now? A thousand? Even 10,000 years? A million? The sun is what, 10 billion years old. Even Shakespeare will be fogotten 100,000 years from now, I bet. Have you ever thought about how big the universe is and how small you are in it? There are billions of galaxies with billions of stars each. You couldn't even live long enough to fly to the nearest star at the speeds we are capable of traveling, let alone the closest galaxy. We grow like grass: soon sprouted, soon dead. Our only hope is One who even knows where every grain of sand is (and loves it). Only belief in God stands between you and you can only see as your personal annihilation. Yet some will not even seek Him out. Some find they cannot believe. I know, I've been there too. But if you seek you will find. What have you got to lose except life itself?

I left a word out: "Only belief in God stands between you and what you can only see as your personal annihilation."

I don't find Paul's teachings to be all that divisive. Sure, some of his teachings reflect the culture which he lived. Especially, his teachings concerning a woman's role in the church. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me." I don't think that Paul thought for a minute that the physical body of Jesus was living within him. I have to assume that he's talking about Spirit. So it doesn't really matter to me if the body of Jesus has decomposed and is found in a tomb. Paul talks a lot about being "in Christ." It's very consistent with the spiritual message of the gospels. Dying to an old way of being, taking up your cross daily to a new way of being, permitting the Spirit to transform your heart, and being born again into a new way of being. It's really a beautiful message. I agree with Rod that it's good that Christians don't call upon each other to kill(any longer) in the name of God. It's my hope that Islam will evolve in a similar way. I find it to be encouraging that so many Muslims don't murder when they've been insulted.

It comes down to the old choice, either Jesus was God, Mad or Bad. And why must that be my choice? Because C.S. Lewis says that's my choice? Jesus can be a spiritual man(like all of us)who understood his spiritual nature and taught us of it. I agree that Christianity doesn't make much sense if there isn't an afterlife. You can make a lot of sense of it(I'd say more sense)by believing that Jesus was a man like, you and I, who was filled with the Holy Spirit.

And why must that be my choice? Because C.S. Lewis says that's my choice? Because that's what Jesus said. C.S. Lewis, like others, is simply pointing out that fact. Jesus can be a spiritual man(like all of us)who understood his spiritual nature and taught us of it. But that's not what He taught. Now you can say the Apostles and Paul made it all up after He was gone, but that only means (if true) that they were wrong--and that Jesus was a phenomenally bad judge of men's hearts. It does not establish your "spiritual man". That is a creation of your own desires, not an historical reality.

Pesky present reveals that some have shot and killed ATF agents, dealt in arms, and bombed federal buildings, but is that too pesky of the long-gone past?

You can't talk "faith" and "history" in the same sentence without a grain of salt. History is the story of events as someone saw it. How "factual" it is depends on the evidence presented. When it comes to "historical" Jesus, there's not a lot of "fact" to be had - there's tons of "faith," but that's all it is (I'm not saying that to minimize the importance of faith,just saying that faith and fact are not the same animal.) Then you've completely misread St. Paul. Most of his epistles are dedicated to getting rid of divisiveness, telling his congregations that having been born a Jew doesn't automatically make you a better Christian than a Gentile convert. Perhaps I mis-spoke. "Paul" is not the source of the divisiveness. His writings are. A good number of Chiristians take his writings for what they were - advice for the early church. Far too many take them as they were (IMO) never meant to be taken - as literally from the mouth of God to the ears of Men, and to be "obeyed" as one would the 10 commandments. There's the source of division. Examples: Does one *have* to be baptised in water to be "saved?" Is the consumption of alcohol sinful? What is the role of women in the body of believers? What does arsenokoites mean? I don't question Paul's motives (much). I do question his authority to speak as God, and I question the requirement some Christians have placed on the body of believers that we must give his words the same level of credence as the words of Jesus. Re: the afterlife - Jesus's physical resurrection is not a detemrining factor for me in my belief of the afterlife. There was an afterlife before he died and rose - its existence is not contingent upon him having done so *bodily*.

Pesky present reveals that some have shot and killed ATF agents, dealt in arms, and bombed federal buildings, but is that too pesky of the long-gone past? Most Stupid. Response. Ever. Koresh was nowhere near to being an orthodox Christian, to put it mildly. The Muslims in question are firmly in the mainstream of Islamic belief. And, Timothy McVeigh was an agnostic, and he didn't bomb the McMurrah Bldg in the Name of Christ.

Derek - you're not reading me clearly - please pay attention to what words I'm *saying* not what you want them to mean: Paul never claimed authority to speak as God, and he often points out where he's his advice, and where he's passing on what he learned of Jesus. I never said Paul claimed authority to speak as God. That's been done for him by Sola Scriptura nuts and biblical literalists. Hence, Paul's writings are the source of much of the division betwixt denominations. The Gospels are also very clear that Christ arose in the flesh. Of course they do - that's hardly the point. The point is, someone said, without the "resurrection," there's no afterlife. I'm merely pointing out that even before Jesus died, there was an afterlife. Its existence is not contingent upon Christ's bodily resurrection. Again, if you want to discount that, fine, but know this: whatever you put in its place is still nothing more than a figment of your imagination. It has absolutely no authority outside of yourself. Where does authority come from? If Paul does not give himself authority to speak as God, why do you give him that power?

Where does authority come from? If Paul does not give himself authority to speak as God, why do you give him that power? He speaks as someone given authority by Jesus, both directly and through his immediate successors. When you say people believe he speaks as God, you need to be more specific. What you're talking about is a minority of Christians. Most Christians do NOT have that view, so when you say there are people who think "Paul speaks as God", I'm going to point out the error in the statement because it requires clarification. To your other point, if you want to believe in the afterlife, fine. Go ahead. There are plenty of other options in the world. My point is that your belief is not Christian in any serious sense of the word. From what we know of the historical record, it is certainly not something that Christ Himself would recognize. When you try to say or imply that it is, well, you're only fooling yourself.

Meh - I'm glad my salvation isn't dependent upon your assessment of it, Derek. You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes "correct" belief. If it works for you, groovy.

Meh - I'm glad my salvation isn't dependent upon your assessment of it, Derek. You seem to have a very narrow view of what constitutes "correct" belief. Of course, it doesn't depend on my assessment. But I'm not citing my assessment of it. I'm citing about 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, beginning with Christ Himself.

It comes down to the old choice, either Jesus was God, Mad or Bad. Because that's what Jesus said. C.S. Lewis, like others, is simply pointing out that fact. Now you can say the Apostles and Paul made it all up after He was gone, but that only means (if true) that they were wrong--and that Jesus was a phenomenally bad judge of men's hearts. It does not establish your "spiritual man". That is a creation of your own desires, not an historical Derek, You keep saying what I MUST believe. I don't have to believe that Jesus was God or crazy. I can believe something in between. But, if I have to choose, I'll choose to say that he was God because I believe that when a person becomes very connected to their spiritual nature, their words and deeds will appear to be God-like. Why do I have to believe the Apostle's interpretations of events or think that they made it all up? I happen to believe that they all experienced the living Spirit of God and believed it to be the Spirit of Christ. There writings reflect that experience and interpretation of the experience. I, also, believe the Spirit of Christ to be one and the same as the Spirit of God. But none of that demands that I accept all of Christian theology. My point isn't that I'm right and your wrong or vice versa. My point is that I can interpret Scripture in a way that makes sense to me, and my interpretations don't have to be as you say they must be. My interpretations aren't based on my desires. My interpretations are based on my experience of Spirit. My interpretations are based on my understanding of Scripture. Could I be faulty or wrong? Yes. But what I'd be wrong about is how God looks in the afterlife. Somehow I don't think that's as important as how I use the transformational power of Spirit to live this physical life.

Preach what? "Make it up as you go along"-ism? Or you could call what it is, pride.

Grace (and others): This story is already fizzling because scholars, even non-Christian scholars, recognize it as nonsense. The local news in Rhode Island had a religious studies professor from Brown (whether Christian or not I don't know) who condemed as a fraud as zealously as any Church representative. Joshua/Jesus, Miriam/Mary, Joseph, and Judah/Judas were among the most common names of the period.

How is that nonsense? She trusts her own interpretation of scripture above anyone else's (a church, tradition, etc). That's pride. That's saying you know better than anyone else what God meant when he inspired the authors. You can't even hand a faith like that on in any meaningful way. It's just making it up as you go along.

How is that nonsense? She trusts her own interpretation of scripture above anyone else's (a church, tradition, etc). That's pride. That's saying you know better than anyone else what God meant when he inspired the authors. You can't even hand a faith like that on in any meaningful way. It's just making it up as you go along. And again, I ask - how is that different from what *you* do when you read the scriptires, hear someone else's interpretation fo them, and choose to "go along" with it? Do you do it because they're smarter than you? More holy than you? Do you do it because of a perception of their authority? Why? How did they get that authority? From whom? God? How do you know? If you can't answer these questions, how do you even know you believe what you believe? And how is your belief different from watsy's or mine or anyone else's?

You keep saying what I MUST believe. I don't have to believe that Jesus was God or crazy. I can believe something in between. And you can believe in sharp-cornered circles, if you want. Just don't expect to be taken very seriously. Trying to pick out "something in between", as you put it, is not interpretation, but reading things into the text that are not there.

So... where did James Cameron call Jesus' resurrection "utter garbage" or anything like that? Did you even read the interview? "Christians worldwide" may not be burning embassies over this, yet, but apparently Christians in Dallas aren't above twisting or outright fabricating someone's words over it.

That was me!

Here's the problem: It doesn't really matter how deeply you believe something to be so. If it is not true, it is not true. No depth of feeling or emotion can breathe life into a stone. So what is true? Jesus said (allegedly) "I am the Truth." That is a reliable Truth only if a) the reporters are accurate, AND b) He actually said it AND c) He had the authority from God to say so. No one "knows" for certain a), b), or c). Ultimately, it all comes down to the Pascalian Wager.

No authority but your own. Pride in your ability to figure it all out on your own. Good luck with that. Wow - you kind of forgot about God in that equation. I see where the disconnect is. You don't believe anyone can know God without your Church's Seal of Approval. I think I know what Jesus would say about that...

Bob, Preach what? "Make it up as you go along"-ism? You know, I hear that sort of nonsense a lot... Personally, I'd rather base my spiritual life on the truths I have gained through my actual experience of Spirit, than on "Because somebody else said so"-ism.

I don't think anyone can show you much of anything tv. Anything different from your truth must be a miscalibration or some such.

Bob, Wanted to clarify that in my post above I did not intend to imply that your spirituality is NOT based on a personal encounter with your God; I can see where it might read that way. What I was trying to say is that just because a person's faith is based on personal experience more than on someone else's revelation, doesn't mean they're pulling it out of their backside or making it up out of thin air.

Oh no she di-int! Oh yes she did... She went *there*!

When one accepts the doctrine of an established church, one must humble themselves before belief tenets that make them uncomfortable. Wait a sec - where did the doctrine come from in the first place if not from other people projecting what they thought God wanted?

re: Mark 16:17-18: Friends, Mark 16:9-20 is not original. It was written by a later Christian scribe who was unhappy with ending Mark at 16:8, since it seems so unsatisfactory: "They [the women at the tomb] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." No New Testament scholar -- believing or otherwise -- thinks 16.9-20 is original to Mark. (That's why most Bibles will put it in brackets with a footnote after a dividing line of some sort.) The debate is whether Mark ended his Gospel at 16:8 or if the original ending is lost.

But why should we trust you? You shouldn't - that's my whole point. Trust *you*.

Here is a rebuttal from national Geographic News by the archeologist who actually discovered and excavated the tomb. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-jesus-tomb.html This film will have about as much impact as the DaVinci Code. In other words....none and will be forgotten tomorrow!

You shouldn't - that's my whole point. Trust *you*. Your point is ridiculous. Trusting yourself gets you any result you want. Christianity, roll-your-ownism, paganism, Islam, voodoo, Xenu, whatever. All equally valid choices using your method.

"trust"... since no details can be known about God, it's reasonable to think that faith and hope in the Unknown God can proceed without requiring any good evidence... but... everything else that is "trusted" here should have some good evidence for its validity... the writings that came from the aging mind of "John" are sometimes of great spiritual value to us Christians... but his opinions are unreliable as "facts"... ... faith hope love joy peace to all...

"When was the last time anyone heard of anyone having signs and wonders follow them? Seems to me they had it right. Somewhere along the way, someone must've gotten it wrong. Otherwise, why no signs? No wonders?" St. Augustine, if memory serves, noted this and commented on it, saying that as the faith was spread by preaching the Word, the signs and wonders were less necessary. Of course he did not believe that they had disappeared entirely -- they still occurred in specific instances when needed. There have been documented stories of natives being able to understand missionaries talking who did not speak their language. I recently read an account of a case in Greece, witnessed by several people, of a Greek monk and a French agnostic grad student who had an hour and a half conversation where each understood the other, despite the fact that the monk knew no French and the student knew no Greek. They each spoke in their own languages yet understood each other perfectly. So, things like that still occur, but it's rare. One also can attribute the rarity to modern man's lack of faith. After all, there were places where even Christ could do no miracle because of the people's unbelief.

(I had problems posting this, so apologies in advance if there are multiple copies) watsy, I'm not a literalist, so that dog won't hunt, as we say down south. Some passages of the bible are to be taken literally and some not, and I basically trust the discernment of the Church over the years to sort it out. That said, here's a difference between the passage you quote about taking up serpents and what I'm saying about the apostles witnessing the physically risen Christ. Actually, there's not a difference: both passages are statements of the apostles about the risen Jesus: --(the apostles say) "It is a fact that we have touched his hands and side." --(and the apostles say): "It is a fact that Jesus said we shall take up serpents and not get killed." In both cases the apostles present themselves as witnesses to what they saw and heard. Now, the quote of Jesus is something they have taken down and reported, as it were, so it remains for them, the church, and us believers to figure out exactly what Christ meant. But the statement that we have felt his hands and sides and eaten with him is reported to us as their direct experience. So either they really did experience this, or they did not. I just don't see a middle ground, unless one is going to try to argue that Christ overcame them all on a spiritual level and caused them to experience this non-real event as a real event. But it hard for me to imagine Christ deliberately fooling them on such a point. If He were going to teach that "resurrection" meant the trasnformation into pure spirit, He could have simply told them that, and that is what we'd believe today. It's not a difficult concept to imagine. So there must be a reason Christ wants us to believe in a physical resurrection, and that reason must be that that is the way it happens. Reality is as it is, not as we imagine we'd like it to be.

~tv, I think ya got something there: a lot of 'em don't. But in the Catholic Church anyway we have miracles: healings that can't be explained, etc. I grew up a protestant, though, and we were taught that there were miracles in the time of Christ but that they didn't happen any more.

There's ambiguity in that quote from Mark. I agree. And it's not isolated to that quote. That's my point. You say that people have to accept what you say(because the authorities have said)as being true or else they must dismiss the whole thing. According to you, my choices are that Jesus was God or Jesus was a crazy person. I say that you can read the gospels, take into account the culture and period of time with which they were written, and come to different conclusions. Where Christians and I part ways is on the pre-Easter Jesus(historical Jesus so to speak) and the bodily resurrection. John, the writer of the gospel, experienced the post-Easter Jesus as God. His writings reflect that from start to finish, and it's truly a gospel of spiritual beauty and truth(IMO). John describes Spirit and how Spirit, through Christ, can be transformational. Paul really does the same thing. It's like saying that God lives and is real(in the spiritual sense)and, by centering on that, you can change your life. He uses stories of Jesus and about Jesus to describe the process. redoppto, I agree with you. I see it in b-net posts all of the time. I think that giving serious consideration and approaching the topic with an open mind is the best way to keep that from happening. I think that most people take on religious viewpoints because of indoctrination that began when they were very young and, as adults, they fear losing points in heaven. Who wants to be Thomas when it's so much easier to go with the flow?

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then what's the point of Christianity? Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, but why is *bodily* resurrection required? Seems to me (coming from a non-Christian perspective, but trying to speak in your terms - forgive me if it doesn't come out quite right) that if Jesus was "full God and full man", then post-crucifixion the body is completely unnecessary, except as a sign... if you and I are not truly our bodies but spirit, then surely God, being entirely Spirit, has even less need of the body that he was just using to talk to us? But every human person -- which is what God deigned to become in Christ -- is truly BOTH body and spirit. Gnosticism and Manichaeism (both ancient and modern) separate the two, and imagine perfect spirits that are somehow trapped in imperfect bodies. To the Christian, this attitude is exactly wrong. Body and soul are completely integrated. So resurrection from the dead means nothing unless it is a resurrection of both body and soul.

Mikey from Plano: So... where did James Cameron call Jesus' resurrection "utter garbage" or anything like that? Did you even read the interview? Rod Dreher: Um, think, dude: if Cameron claims he found the box that Jesus was buried in, it's pretty clear that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. As they point out in the interview, a body would at worst contraindicate a physical ascension, not the resurrection per se. If we're gonna count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, let's make sure we're talking about the same fricking pin. And finding evidence against something is not quite the same as calling it "utter garbage". "X may not be true" is not the same as "X is utter garbage and people who believe it are embassy bombing savages". Actually, re-reading your original post, I'm not sure if the "utter garbage" phrase refers to the documentary itself, or as I thought in writing my comment, that you're claiming that James Cameron thinks that the doctrine of resurrection is "utter garbage". It's a pretty confusing statement. Your reply (if that really is Rod Dreher) makes me think my initial understanding was correct. But if the "utter garbage" comment is directed at the documentary itself, does this mean that you've actually seen it? It doesn't come out until next Sunday. I suppose you might have read the pdf...

Here's another point to consider. If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead and this is indeed his tomb, who buried him there? Was it the 11 apostles who then all went on to be martyred (sp?) for their faith? Why would they willingly die for something they KNEW was false? Watsy & TV, would you be willing to let someone kill you over your interpretation of the Bible? I would say probably not...because, as you said, you could be wrong and who wants to die for something that might not be true. How much more foolish to believe the apostles would be willing to die for something they knew was false. I find this to be among the most compelling of arguments for the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Fair point, Erica. People are capable of group psychosis over short periods, but not for a whole century of the early Church and beyond. On Pentacost a group of scared and hunted men and women suddenly get motivated to go out to preach the Gospel. That required that they'd experienced something well beyond some grave-robbing and fairytales. These were simple but not stupid people who knew in many case they were signing their death warrants to the Jewish and Roman auhorities. Again, as Rod bluntly pointed out, if Jesus is no more than a groovy guy, Christianity is pointless. As to ambiguity, reread the story of Thomas after the Resurrection.Yes, you can point to gnostic gospels, and translations, etc., but the central point of the account is the same-the Risen Christ is flesh and blood. Some of you who want to concede Cameron's idiocy as compatible with faith don't get that his whole goal is to completely discredit Christianity.

"And they would have known..." well... "they" lived in a culture that believed greatly in the supernatural... and others in their culture surely passed along stories orally... and embellishments happened along the way... until finally years later the stories were written down... supernatural embellishments included... it's not likely that the "Apostles" were then handed copies and asked for verification... chances are that the Apostles never saw the finished Gospels and what was claimed... I think the Apostles would have been shocked to read the claims made about them... and... then... "... they died for it..." yes... to die for a cause takes a strong belief in the cause... but the foundation of the cause does not have to be true... which is why Christianity and, as an example, Islam and Mormonism all have spread because of the strong beliefs of their adherents... all these Faiths have had followers willing to die for their faith... it's obvious that history is full of those who have died for causes that are not true... ... faith hope love joy peace to all...

Simon, I have a few questions. Your post is helping me to understand some Christian perspective that I don't think that I ever understood before. To the Christian, this attitude is exactly wrong. Body and soul are completely integrated. So resurrection from the dead means nothing unless it is a resurrection of both body and soul. Does that mean, from a Christian perspective, people are dead until they are bodily resurrected? In other words, the spirit doesn't return to God unless the whole body returns to God? Are we to assume that if we see a corpse that has decayed that no part of them returned to God? I think that you may have hit on why I can find meaning within the gospels without the need for a bodily resurrection. If it happened-great, if it didn't-so what. I think of the body and the Spirit as being separate. Spirit lives on and the body decays. I'm not saying that there's no connection. Spirit is connected to the mind, and the mind is connected to our physical being. It's complex, and I don't fully(perhaps even partially) understand it. But I do believe that our spiritual self is distinct from our physical self. Spiritual self can influence our physical self during this life, but upon death, spiritual self remains. When I read the gospels, especially the gospel of John, it's about our mind connecting in a conscious sense to that which is spiritual within us. That's what I mean when I say that Jesus was human, and no different than us. The body and spirit of Jesus was separate, but Jesus was able to keep his mind centered more fully on that Spirit. According to the gospels, Jesus went off for long periods to pray. It took effort on his part, just like it does us, to remain centered. As to the Apostles, I think that they did have mystical experiences after the crucifixion where they encountered the living Spirit of Jesus.

The Christian doctrine is that the bodies and souls of the departed will be reunited at the Resurrection and Body and soul are completely integrated. So resurrection from the dead means nothing unless it is a resurrection of both body and soul. I was a Lutheran preacher's kid and I never heard this growing up - not even once. If this was a core Christian belief across the board, then surely all Christian churches would forbid cremation?

Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, and Anglican Catholics count for alot of Christians, and I think they all have a Creed with "resurrection of the body" included.

"The Christian doctrine is that the bodies and souls of the departed will be reunited at the Resurrection" and "Body and soul are completely integrated. So resurrection from the dead means nothing unless it is a resurrection of both body and soul." "I'm not sure if I heard of this within my Christian upbringing. It, certainly, wasn't emphasized. It does help to explain why some Christians place so more emphasis on the bodily resurrection than others." Watsy and Erik: I think the reason for the lack of awareness of these ideas is the fact that much of modern Christianity has moved away from its historical moorings. I grew up as a Baptist, then a Pentecostal and never heard this either. But these historical understandings of the body, burial, resurrection, etc., are still taught in those churches which have maintained a connection with the Church's patristic roots, i.e., the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the more traditional Anglicans. The further away one gets, theologically speaking, from the historical foundation, the less one hears about things like this, whereas in the groups mentioned above, such understandings are well nigh universal (apart from liberalizing trends), as they were in the early Church.