I completely agree with this Christy. In fact I have given a thorough and detailed analysis of why we should never even think about proving the existence of God on my blog. (Warning: its a bit irreverent).
Yes. And no. Not all arguments are mere rational apologetics. Some arguments are emotional appeals, personal testimonies, witness of life, and removal of objections. Even apologetics has its place, although not effective for all types of people.
Nevertheless, mere head knowledge and rationality will not be enough to experience the richness and fulness of God’s grace and love.
I brought up that point because your colleague Eddie seems to think that Wikipedia shouldn’t be trusted. Hence I figured—birds of a feather flock together. Thus, like I said, your emphasis on YouTube was surprising since in fact you saw part of the documentary. Then when you advised that “Wikipedia has a good summary article,” I said to myself, "it’s fine for them to suggest a reading of Wikipedia to make their point although, if I recommend a Wikipedia article, I’m using un unrespected source. However, I’m not surprised by the tactics, since I understand what’s at stake. That issue should now be all cleared up… let’s move along.
I will take a look at the Wiki article and the references when I have time, and it’s clear the burden of evidence lies with the team working to debunk the resurrection story. However, the intention is not an attempt to destroy Christianity. On the contrary—the purpose is to fulfill all that was said by the prophets.
You said this is very very old news, and that you’re surprised this myth is being “resurrected” now. And yet… you’re aware that Jacobivici is making a second movie.
An investigation begins when something doesn’t add up. During the initial stages of that investigation, proposals are made as to convey how things should actually be. These proposals are then meticulously analyzed so as to assess where to look for the evidence so that those things do add up—this is what the investigative team is working on. I find this approach to truth very commendable.
I am not aware of any DNA evidence outside of the film and therefore do not have any links to provide to that effect.
I’m aware of the “James brother of Jesus” ossuary and it’s connection to the Talpiot tomb. However, the “new evidence” I was referring to is the Talpiot tomb itself with all its considerations, and the implications it has on the resurrection story. In other words, how this “new evidence” changes the meaning and significance of the “resurrection” of Jesus.
I read your essay and felt your strong appreciation for the grace of God.
You wrote…
“As a young man I saw the film “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew” by Passolini… I remember thinking, wouldn’t it be wonderful if I could believe in the lovely myth of the resurrection.”
I believe myths, fables, and legends usually hold profound truths that have important morals to teach. The way I see it is that the story itself is not truthful at face value, but has a symbolic representation of something else that is hidden within it. I believe this is the case with the resurrection of Jesus story. The time has come to awaken and enlighten the world with its true significance.
I fully agree with your conviction that science and faith are complementary and mutually supportive however, to complement scientific fact the true, deeper meaning of the face value myth story of the resurrection must be taken into consideration, otherwise there is no complementary mutual support. The connection between science and faith breaks down. A physical body dematerializing and rematerializing somewhere else, whether in a spirit realm, or some other physical location of the universe has no sound basis whatsoever. Neither does a physical body simply disappearing altogether make sense. And no, we cannot say, well… God’s ways are not our ways, or, God’s ways are mysterious, and leave it at that. No… The mystery of God is what I explained to Christy; “Jesus’ spirit (personality) has been elevated (resurrected?) in the realm of archetypal forms, where our thoughts have access to this information and we do the most we can to emulate who He was (and still is—in the realm of archetypal forms), until His spirit reincarnates into a new soul with His return?”
You explained your journey that led you from your youth of fervent atheism to where are today? and said, “The answer is simple: God called me, insistently and clearly, though it took me decades to finally listen and hear.” Hopefully God’s call today to see reason won’t take decades!
From the essay…
“I was finally given the gift of God’s grace directly from Christ in a dramatic and undeniable way. But in order to fully accept this gift, and to know that I belong to Christ, body and soul, I needed to reconcile this new faith with my scientific sense of reason. As it turned out, I found this (as many others have) to be surprisingly straightforward, especially after reading The Language of God. My journey to faith began with art and emotion, but it reached fruition with my growing understanding of how the characteristics of the natural universe point to God.”
Very touching! I enjoyed reading your essay–you have remarkable writing skills.
From the essay…
“But although we find many pointers to divinity, God so designed the world that His hand in its creation can never be proven beyond doubt. If that were not true, then free will and the beauty of faith would disappear. Faith is a gift to be accepted by an open heart, and an open mind. The knowledge of God’s grace cannot be forced on anyone by the discovery of any irrefutable fact that proves His existence. But the converse is also true. No scientific endeavor will ever prove the absence of God, and so we are free to believe.”
I’m not sure that free will and the beauty of faith would disappear, although… the beauty of the fulfillment of that faith would be reached. God’s grace is a gift to be accepted by an open heart, and an open mind. However, faith is the reassurance of that gift. Faith is also the reassurance of God’s promises. I agree that the knowledge of God’s grace cannot be forced on anyone by the discovery of any irrefutable fact that proves His existence. God’s grace must be accepted because we know of His offering to forgive us through the sacrifice of His Son. No scientific endeavor will ever prove the absence of God since His presence resides within all that exists. How can we prove that we do not exist—I think, therefore I am.
In regard to my calling from God, and reception of His grace, I also became interested in mysticism and transcendence. Since you do not possess the knowledge I have suggests to me that you have not delved deep enough into that mysticism and transcendence. But that’s fine, because it’s not for everyone—we all have our own specific individual calling. What you see from me is my calling.
And again from the essay…
“The best thing about my journey from atheism to faith is that it isn’t over. I have learned a lot, but there is much more to explore, and I would like to thank BioLogos for being the vehicle for so much exploration of the natural works of the Lord in the context of His amazing grace.”
There you go… you have learned a lot, but there is much more to explore." That was my invitation—to explore.
Yes that approach to truth is fine when its done in a scientific context, in a lab by scientists with no ax to grind who are keeping in mind always the rules of objective research, (double blinding, repetitive experiments, and so on). Frankly I dont believe that James Cameron has a clue about the scientific method, and I also dont trust the objectivity of Jacobivici.
Tony, thank you for your kind words about that essay, I also appreciate your sharing with us your thoughts about spirituality and mysticism. I have always learned a great deal from this site, from both the blog writers and commenters, and I am happy that I have been able to return here and find newer people like yourself from whom I can indeed continue to learn.
As an aside, regarding the issue of free will and faith, you might want to check out my own blog, whiere I have posted something about that in a much more humorous style
Eddie
Wonderful post. I completely agree, and only wish I had written it myself. But I think it came out better from you. Thanks
Yes, this is my own investigation although, I take it as being a calling from God who directs its every move. Similarly, I don’t have any credentials but was on my way to further my education when certain personal issues hindered that aspiration. This includes the issue of the college academic advisor who recommended the wrong course of action that I should take—at that point I would have had 4 university courses to my name with 6 more remaining for a university certificate. That’s what you get when you take advice from someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about. I was supposed to “wet my feet” and “check out the waters” to see if I was able. Well, my grades were all in the 90’s. Now I have 4 college course with no way to do anything with them. Isn’t that just great!
I first received my calling in 1998, I was in my 30’s. I had graduated from high school some 15 years earlier, received a diploma in the electrical field, and worked in the construction industry. I was born, baptized, and raised in the Roman Catholic tradition however, at 20, I took up studies with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. After being introduced to the group I went through the initial study of their “You Can Live in Paradise on Earth Forever” book. I attended their Sunday kingdom hall meetings, their weekly home study groups, and then began the door to door ministry. I read the bible back to back, researched encyclopedias and read other books at the library. Naturally, I pondered many long hours concerning what I was learning. After two years of being a part of their flock I could take no more—the deeper mysteries weren’t being answered, I was not satisfied with their responses, and I could not leave it at that. I just had to leave. I never regretted the experience however, since it refined and redefined the person that I am today. So at 22 I was back with my old friends, back to my old lifestyle, but began to see the world through more conscious and attentive eyes.
It wasn’t until 1998 with a traumatic midlife crises that the events in the world and the general goings on in life became clearer. Psychology and philosophy were the missing pieces of the puzzle. When these pieces came together with spiritual and biblical knowledge, they fit together perfectly—this was going to be a game changer. The Judeo/Christian faith and science totally complementing each other perfectly. Those deeper mysteries were now answered for me.
Hence, in 2002, the several evening college courses I took in the humanities and psychology gave me the proper tools to think more critically, research more professionally, and gave me the proper guidelines for the preparations involved in writing essays.
There was an attempt at publishing my worldview in 1999, although, It was a total failure. This attempt, of course, was before having taken the college courses in 2002. Think about it as someone who would have something to say about some important topic without having the appropriate words to express his thoughts. In retrospect, I now view the experience as the perfect example of parapsychology’s definition of “automatic writing.”
What does the community of biblical scholars think of my stuff? Well… the world has changed dramatically! since 9 11 2001. Can they debate that biblical prophecy is not being fulfilled? Or that God’s Kingdom has become established in the total taking over this world? Can they deny that the Christ has already arrived? Soon… very soon, it will become a lot more apparent. Stand by for further developments.
I’m sorry, but I believe the Gospels were tampered with and/or the message wasn’t fully comprehended. In relation to the tampering, It’s not too difficult to imagine considering the control that the Roman Empire had over its subjects. With the seat of Caesar being given over to the Popes of Rome that control was transferred to that establishment. We are well aware of the hard handed policies the Roman Catholic Church enforced during the Middle Ages and the Inquisition. (people accused of witchcraft, burnings at the stake, bible burnings, etc… In relation to the message, it isn’t too difficult either to imagine that some of Jesus’ followers didn’t completely understand God’s plan as Jesus did. After all, Jesus understood the deeper mysteries of God and often spoke in parables and metaphors. Therefore it shouldn’t be that difficult to imagine that the wrong message, or an inaccurate interpretation of it was developed, eventually making its way into the writings we have today. In this way, the Gospels may very well be high quality authentic historical documents however, the deeper significance of what Jesus was teaching may not have been captured.
First of all though, it should be understood that I am a believer in the Judeo/Christian tradition of God’s plan for mankind. I believe that the bible is God’s word, that Moses was the giver of the Law, the prophets were God’s spokesmen, and Jesus Christ was the prophesied Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the world. I also believe in the second coming where Christ will establish God’s Kingdom. He will return as a man, born of a woman, from amongst mankind. The four and twenty elders who bow down and take off their crowns before Him are four and twenty organizations, here on earth, which together form the Kingdom of God. The 144,000, whether a literal number or symbolic, are those who work within these organizations—they are part of God’s Government.
Now that it is fully clear that I am in harmony with and not working against God’s plan I will explain what I am referring to in regard to the things being contrary to every established scientific fact. This is where I wrote to Christy that these “clear claims of eyewitnesses” are not reliable sources for “credible evidence.” (Above, I explained why I believe these “clear claims of eyewitnesses” are not reliable sources for “credible evidence”—that the Gospels were tampered with and/or the message wasn’t fully comprehended.) The point about “being contrary to every established scientific fact” involves the false interpretation of what is meant by the resurrection and the ascension. In relation to the resurrection—physical human bodies do not dematerialize and then rematerialize somewhere else. (Unless we are talking about the sexual reproduction of genetic information being passed on to future generations). In a sense, but not purely, because the offspring receives genetic information from the father and the mother, the physical human body dies (dematerializes) but then (rematerializes) is reproduced as the offspring. In relation to the ascension—spiritual conscious awareness ceases to exist at death. (Unless we are talking about the soul (psyche) which is passed on to the offspring through learned behavior (psychology) from the father and mother to the children). When the father and/or mother die, the soul continues to exist (ascends) in the offspring.
Therefore, concepts of physical bodies coming back to life after death and, ideas of souls continuing to exist after death only invite false illusions and fairy tales of the resurrection and dismembered souls ascending to alternate realms. This of course is supported by false illusions and fairy tales of a white haired bearded man in the sky God, a horned pitch forked entity called Satan, and a myriad of angels and demons. It all makes for a good horror movie!
This must also hold true for almost all “established” religious facts as they are subject to reconsideration when new theories or information become available." What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
I’ve been on BioLogos from the beginning, and I’ve seen more than a few folks come to BioLogos to aggressively market their books or ideas.
1 Like
Actually, “historical facts” can also be overturned, and we both know that—don’t we? Apples to apples and oranges to oranges, there… back to you! 
This was your statement, wasn’t it?
Fact in history
“A common rhetorical cliché states, “History is written by the winners.” This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.
E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History?, argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, “like fish in the Ocean,” of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean’s surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different biases of fact finding - all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past - and that one’s methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. Historical truth and facts therefore change over time, and reflect only the present consensus (if that).” Wikipedia - Fact in History
I choose to trust historical narratives that abide by rational thought, not outlandishly spun fantasies. There is a logical explanation for what happened 2000 years ago and the truth will be told. I agree that people in the first century had progressed to the point where they knew whether execution victims were dead or not. However, that is not evidence that Jesus died of the crucifixion. I am not advocating that Jesus did not die of the crucifixion nor am I ruling it out. At the moment I am only exploring all the different possibilities involved that may be potential candidates for the probable truthful answer. This is because things do not add up to be in accord with the biblical narrative.
If the account is as scripture states, that after Jesus’ crucifixion and death He was placed in the garden tomb (what some believe was the Garden of Joseph of Arimathea) where Roman soldiers were standing guard (who fell asleep), and the next morning Mary found it empty. What happened to the body? Whether Jesus’ body was removed and placed in the Talpiot tomb (or any other tomb) for that matter, makes no difference. The point is that Jesus’ body was removed and transported elsewhere—dead human bodies do not disappear! The same conclusion is to be drawn if Jesus was dead, or, if He was not. This is because if He was not dead, but rather was unconscious and came-to, He most probably would not have been able to stand up on His feet, walk to the entrance of the tomb, and roll away the stone (Jesus underwent serious torture… and in any case the stone would have been too heavy to roll away even for a bodybuilder if he’d have a good grip on the stone). Then for Jesus to have walked out, with the Roman soldiers conveniently asleep. Only… maybe moments, or a few hours later, to return and appear to Mary is very unlikely to say the least.
Now, if there is any possibility that God (YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self) within Jesus (who exists within all mankind) revived Jesus (if He was unconscious), and healed Him (by miraculous psychic powers), stood Him on His feet, and walked Him to the entrance of the tomb. Where He (YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self) rolled away the stone (by miraculous psychic powers) and walked Jesus out of the tomb, would be difficult for most people to believe. Let me add that if Jesus was dead, then the God (YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self) within Jesus would also be dead (with death of the human body comes death to the cognitive conscious faculties). The problem with the main part of this reasoning is that if Jesus was only unconscious and God (YHWH, the I Am, or the Higher Self) walked Him out of the tomb where Jesus walked around Israel and met with His disciples—in the end… physical human bodies do not fly into the sky (the Ascension). Finally, if we bring concepts of the etheric body and out of body experiences into play—things do not add up either. The etheric body is the subtle body propounded in esoteric philosophies. It is said to be in immediate contact with the physical body, to sustain it and connect it with “higher” bodies. But as it sustains the physical body and connects it with “higher bodies,” the etheric body depends on the physical body for its survival. Concerning etheric projection (the out-of-body experience), if it is actually possible to leave and return to the physical body and Jesus used this vehicle to appear to His disciples Jesus’ physical body would have had to have been still alive. Then there is the fact that Thomas put his hand into Jesus’ wound—this seems to be a physical occurrence. Also, if the disciples witnessed Jesus ascending into the heavens (the Ascension) this would be done through the vehicle of the etheric body. However, this would suggest that the physical body was still alive on earth. So you see… all bases are covered, all we need is a major hit to bring it all home.
One possibility is that Jesus death is indeed factual. On that fateful day events progressed as scripture outlines. Although, during the night, before the morning where Jesus’ disciples found the empty tomb, Jesus’ “closest” associates carried the body off to the “Talpiot” tomb—perhaps the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb were part of a conspiracy! However, this line of reasoning does not explain how so many people saw Jesus after His burial. The answer could be that the sightings of Jesus may have been added to the story.
Another possibility is that Jesus survived the crucifixion. (Since Jesus was to be the sacrificial Passover lamb would His sacrifice not have been accepted if He willingly went through with the sacrifice and survived it? Wouldn’t the willingness to sacrifice Himself and His blood being spilt have been enough for the sacrifice to have been authentic and accepted? When Abraham took his son Isaac up to Mount Moriah to be sacrificed, did God not accept that Abraham was prepared to go through with it? Was Isaac’s life not spared? These are valid considerations regarding God’s plan of salvation and the sacrificial atonement.) That Jesus survived the crucifixion, lived the rest of His life in Israel, and when He eventually died was placed in the Talpiot tomb is a possible fact. This would explain why so many people saw Jesus after His burial. That night His “closest” associates—with the help of the Roman soldiers who were part of the conspiracy—removed Jesus from the tomb and brought Him to another location where He was nursed back to health.
Here, the two considerations have the same implications concerning Christ’s second coming. Whether Jesus was dead when placed in the garden tomb, or whether He survived, lived the remainder of His life, and later died makes no difference. How then will Christ return? Two different answers involving the same circumstances are the most probable answers.
Either someone in our world today is randomly chosen and taken over by the Holy Spirit where he becomes aware that he is the Christ, or, by strictly being a descendent of Jesus Christ (the idea that Jesus married and had children) where someone becomes systematically chosen and taken over by the Holy Spirit where he becomes aware that he is the Christ. In the first scenario, by having been raised in the right environment with the right conditions, this person would be led by the Holy Spirit to become acquainted with the appropriate knowledge which would awaken him to his calling. In the second scenario, if Jesus was actually married and had children, by strictly being a descendent of Jesus Christ this person would inherit the genetic and psychological characteristics of the family line. Again, this person would be led by the Holy Spirit (the genetic and psychological characteristics of his family heritage) to become acquainted with the appropriate knowledge which would revive his soul (psyche) to his past life and who he really is.
But that is a faith claim based on your “divine” revelation!" It doesn’t mean that your “faith claim” is actually divine or based on reality.
Well… we do agree on something; “He is physically going to return to earth.” Only that Jesus was never in some other physical location of the universe. He was entombed here on earth. Although, is spirit (personality) continued to exist in the world of archetypes (the world of forms). Some religious groups, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe that Jesus came back in 1914—but only in spirit. Others believe He is not returning at all but reigns from the heavens as a spirit being. I believe planet earth will be transformed into the paradise God intended from the beginning. For me, heaven is the astral plane (the world of mind) where we can mold reality into new constructs. The place where prophecy is dictated to be later made manifest in the physical world. “A spiritual world for disembodied souls” is a deceptive statement which creates ideas of a world where the dead continue to live as conscious beings!
Let’s begin with your own statement that “Jesus now exists in bodily (material) human form in another realm.” Let’s also throw-in that “spiritual world of disembodied souls.” Hey…what about all those angels and demons that exist in that spiritual world. All kinds of other deceptive lies and superstitions spin-off from these.
If the 12 different recorded appearances of Jesus are authentic it would suggest that He had not died but survived the crucifixion. If they were not authentic appearances but only added to the story, then perhaps Jesus had died of His wounds. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I too believe in miracles and also respect science, but I’ll have to disagree that natural laws don’t govern miracles. The natural laws are God’s laws and God’s laws govern all of nature, therefore, natural laws govern miracles.
I care! Similarly, all true Christians should care! Why? Because without “objectively proving” the historical facts that surround Christianity its whole purpose is futile.
Ok… fine “objectively proving” the historical facts that surround Christianity doesn’t prove any of its central faith claims because Christianity’s central faith claims deal with the spiritual realm. However, “objectively proving” the historical facts that surround Christianity is crucial for understanding who Christianity’s Christ is. Without this understanding Christianity cannot reach its intended objective—the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ’s reign, the paradise earth, peace for eternity, and the return to God dominion over all things.
I agree that arriving at Christianity’s truth claims by faith doesn’t mean they aren’t warranted beliefs. However, parents who have been raised and in turn have raised their children in the way of these truth claims through faith (that have had these truth claims verified by observation, reason, logic, and proof) have an advantage over other parents who suffer the evils of life through ignorance of that observation, reason, logic, and proof. In turn their children suffer the evils that life presents.
I disagree that if someone can only accept what they can objectively prove, they will be blind to the Kingdom. The kingdom can be objectively proven to children that have parents who have Christianity’s truth claims and have proven to themselves, through rationality, the factuality of these truth claims. This is a false claim. Many people are born into Christianity’s truth claims and have objectively proven these truth claims to themselves. Therefore they objectively teach their children about the kingdom which is accepted with open arms. Unfortunately, parents and children without this knowledge suffer. Having faith about a clear plan that is understood is easily accepted by anyone, and one’s life can be adapted according to that plan. However, to have faith about something that you believe no one understands (which you don’t understand yourself) is viewed as fanciful dreaming and easily discarded if ever adopted at all.
Your statement, “It is kind of pointless to try to argue someone into faith” is true only if faith in that particular argument is weak. If you ask me to have faith that Jesus will return in the clouds because it is written in the bible, I will be very skeptical, and justifiably so. You will not convince me to have faith in your claim. However, if you ask me to have faith (because we are both aware that Jesus married and had children) that someone from His family line will return and be given the throne of David, I will have faith. You wouldn’t have to convince me to have faith. So, where you said, “If someone can only accept what they can objectively prove, they will be blind to the Kingdom,” is completely false. You will not convince me to have faith that Jesus will return in the clouds, although… I will have sight of the kingdom.
I totally agree. All historical narratives are inherently subjective.
I think you’ll find, like many others before you, that there isn’t a satisfying rational explanation. All hypotheses that involve no miracles require a number of totally unlikely scenarios and “irrational” assumptions as well. Everyone picks their narrative.
I am not divine. And I’m pretty thoroughly postmodern, so I have no problem with my reality being different than other people’s reality, and all of us only having a partial and incomplete idea of God’s ultimate reality. By “divine revelation” I mean (my understanding of) what Jesus and the Christian Scriptures reveal and what the Church claims has been revealed to believers through the Holy Spirit (who I believe is a Person of the Trinity and therefore God, not some projection of the human soul.) Faith claims are not based on scientifically or historically provable “realities.”
It seems to me you have based some of your faith claims about on Greek philosophical constructs, Eastern concepts of spiritual consciousness, and your imagination. Which is totally your prerogative. But I don’t see how it is any more “rational” to believe what you believe than what I believe. Why is the Resurrection such a sticking point, when you clearly accept many other claims that can’t be proven, observed, or experienced?
What about them? You can’t prove they don’t exist.
Believing someone could survive a Roman crucifixion (and all the torture that went before it as recorded in the Gospels) is as “irrational” and scientifically inexplicable as believing in the Resurrection.
Sure you can. If you aren’t committed to the idea that everything has to have a rational explanation, there is no issue believing Jesus died and came back to like. And that is exactly what billions of Christians throughout history have believed and continue to believe. 
What, in your mind, is the purpose of Christianity?
Fair enough. But you aren’t going to objectively prove it. You are going to reach a point where you believe that accepting the revelation for what it claims is warranted or not.
I’m pretty sure we don’t use the word “objectively” the same way.
Come again?
I don’t put my faith in arguments. I put my faith in a Person, Jesus Christ. I also think faith is a gift from God, a work of the Holy Spirit, not something we arrive at by our own mental exercises, intellect, and willpower.
I agree with all my heart. How could a crucifixion/scourging victim looking like death warmed over, suffering from hypovolemic shock, etc. possibly survive, especially without modern medicine? Furthermore, how could he convince his followers that he had risen in glory? Heck, he would not even be able to walk on his own.
The truth is, these ideas are just warmed-over baloney, and some of this garbage I’ve heard many years ago.
Exactly… So how is it that we have 12 different recorded appearances of Jesus walking on his own in different areas of Judea and Galilee!
I did say I was not advocating that Jesus did not die of the crucifixion. I said all areas of consideration should be explored.
What are you afraid of?!!!
Um… he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…
Yes, that is part of the biblical story. However, just as the true meaning and veracity of other parts of the biblical are coming to light (thanks to BioLogos) the true meaning and veracity of this part of the story must also be brought to light. That’s what the rapture is all about!
Rapture: a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things.
Mystical: having spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence. (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary)
Let us use our imaginations to think critically and objectively.
I think you are misinterpreting the mission of BioLogos. Science doesn’t inform the “true meaning” of the Bible, the Holy Spirit does. Science informs our understanding of how the natural world works, which we seek to harmonize with biblical revelation, because all truth is God’s truth. Miracles and spiritual realities are outside of the domain of science and are therefore, not informed by science. I don’t really know what you mean by using one’s imagination to think critically. I see imaginative thinking and critical thinking as distinct exercises.
1 Like
I don’t think I am misinterpreting the mission of BioLogos, Christy. Yes, the Holy Spirit informs of the “true meaning” of the Bible, and going back to the 5th century B.C, or so, and then to the 1st century A.D., the Holy Spirit used the Hebrew and Greek common day language of the people to express itself. In today’s postmodern world the Holy Spirit can use the more specific and concise language of science and philosophy. Therefore the Holy Spirit can use science to inform of the “true meaning” of the Bible.
Exactly, the Holy Spirit (through science) informs our understanding of how the natural world works which we seek to harmonize with biblical revelation, because all truth is God’s truth."
If the Holy Spirit uses science to inform about the domain of miracles and spiritual realities then… yes, they are informed by science.
You’re correct I also see imaginative thinking and critical thinking as distinct exercises. I should have phrased my comment as follows: Let us think critically and objectively, and use our imaginations to transcend our present understanding of Biblical truth.
I am not really saying anything new here about the advancement process of knowledge. However, I am suggesting where this process of advancement should look for the answers concerning Christ’s whereabouts.
When we are thinking critically we claim or assume something. The claim and the thinking upon which it is based is subject to rational evaluation. When we do the evaluation, we are thinking critically.
By using our imagination we can tap into knowledge, that as yet, does not exist. This is what is meant by Webster’s definition of Rapture and Mystical.
Rapture: a mystical experience in which the spirit is exalted to a knowledge of divine things.
Mystical: having spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence.
If we use our critical thinking and our objectivity we will grasp the true meaning of these words. To experience the rapture we must use our imagination because the knowledge of Christ’s whereabouts is neither apparent to the five senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch) nor obvious to the intelligence (we have no knowledge of it). Therefore, the sixth sense is the vehicle we must use to experience the rapture. The sixth sense is the imagination, this is what is required to tap into this previously unknown knowledge.
Accordingly, through these two distinct exercises—critical thinking and imaginative thinking—we can be raptured and transcend our normal perception of the state of reality concerning Christ’s whereabouts.