Jump to content
JesusWalk Bible Study Forum

Q1. Liberal Christian Scholars and the Resurrection


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

I don't think that you can be Christian and explain away the resurrection of Christ. You may be a scholar and attempt to explain it away but in the end all you are really doing is stating that you don't believe in God and His power over you and your being. If you are to be a true Christian then you must be that Jesus was who He said He was and that God raised Him fromthe dead the way He said He did, Romans 10:9,10. I think that the scholars that deny that Jesus rose from the dead are not true scholars in that they have miss out on the higher calling of the one who give wisdom to those who ask and believe that He gives to all freely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only answer this question with a question of my own: doesn't it take faith to be a Christian? I really have a hard time with those who would call themselves Christian when for them it is just liking the story of Jesus Christ but not believing it. Their god is 'knowledge' not Jesus, they worship 'knowledge', not Jesus. Perhaps we could distinguish between those that worship 'knowledge' and those who worship Jesus by identifying those that like the story with 'christian', small 'c'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that Jesus is raised from the dead, the first fruits of all creation. I am having a bit of trouble being distracted by the language in this lesson, though. I sense that I am supposed to be angry at liberal Christian scholars as I read this rhetoric. The liberal Christian is not my enemy. The scholar is not my enemy. No matter how conservative my viewpoint, nor how liberal theirs, our common enemy is God's adversary (also known as beelzebub, the devil, satan, etc). I would like to see language that addresses resurrection without vilifying people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

Liberal Christians generally believe that the authors and redactors of the Bible were not directly inspired by God and that they wrote material that contains errors. They based their writings on their own life experiences. Their writings reflect their personal.

1. Knowledge of ancient stories, legends, and myths, These would have been of questionable accuracy Some would have been passed down and/or adsorbed from other cultures.

2. Knowledge about events in their past, which would have been inaccuracies.

3Customs based on ancient Hebrew and Jewish culture which may or may not reflect the will of God---either then or today.

4. Beliefs about the nature, expectations, locations, attributes, etc. of God, and His will for humanity. These beliefs would differ among the various authors.

5. Some would describe events that never happened or which happened differently

6 The Mosiac Law would have reflected only the beliefs of the writers of the Pentateuch. They were not laws delivered to humanity by God.

7. One would expect that the moral. ethical, spiritual, and religious teachings found in Bible passages would show differences of opinion and a gradual evolution of belief over the ten centuries during which the books of the Bible were written could be expected to violate the will of God.

Most liberal Christians find that their interpretation of biblical passages demonstrates all of these expectations.

Liberal and conservative Christians have different sets of fundamental theological beliefs and thus develop different sets of moral truths regarding such topics as the resurrection of Jesus. Each group base their conclusions on the bible. Since these positions are opposed, the Bible must have led at least one group to hold false beliefs.

Some religious liberals believe that Jesus was executed, and His body thrown into a pit, along with other crucified victims. They do not believe in Jesus bodily resurrection. Many suspect that His reappearances to His followers after His death were a form of mass hallucination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

I believe it is because of an unwillingness to accept by faith anything that cannot be proven by naturalism. The Jewish leaders who had Him crucified remembered the words of Jesus about rising from the dead on the third day. They took significant steps to squelch the story of the guards that had been guarding the tomb by bribing them. (An interesting question is why did they go to the Jewish leaders before they reported to their own military leaders?) The easiest way to prove the resurrection false was to produce the body of Jesus but they could not, for there was no body to produce. The God of many of today's liberal scholars is not a very powerful one, not able to perform acts that defy the laws of nature. Today's scholars have the same problem that the biblical scholars had; they did not want to submit to an all powerful, omnipotent Creator God and therefore reject the Savior as He is; Redeeming and RISEN LORD. They do not believe that God is intimately involved in each of our lives and in fact are very uncomfortable with that idea. They want to run their own lives and careers and not submit completely to the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not as well scripted as most ppl who answer these boards but please let me say this. The only way most people not just liberal christians and scholars can not believe in the resurection is faith. The world we live in now pushes fact on us. My 12 yr old daughter is in public schools being taught that if you can not reproduce it then it is not true. My daughter thank God has held on to her beliefs. I taught her that just because you dont see it or that there is no physical proof of it then it does not mean it is not true, But if you have faith and pray for guidance then truth will be known to you. God and His Son are the knowledge that we as christians should be seeking and it says a few times in the bible tjhat HE IS THE WORD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian scholars who are liberal are an oxymoron. It is too easy to be called a Christian when, in fact, one has been corrupted by worldly teaching to the point where there is no belief in the very essence of of our faith, the resurrection. I don't see where anyone who is liberal can be a Christian in that the very Word of God is extreme conservatisim in today's society. Since Jesus came to not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it, any liberal interpretation is escapism from the conviction that the Word is intended to instill in it's readers. Furthermore, those who cannot see the supernatural aspect of God in one part, are blind to all aspects of the Lord's power and are religious, not truly Christian at all. By their lack of faith in the Word of God they are emissaries for the devil, blinded to the truth, and unable to accept the historical facts concerning of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Christians not only the Christian scholars do efforts on seeking the truth, and these liberal scholars might be seeking more proof of the reality of Christ resurrection basing on practical ideas and within human level of understanding - but these are just ideas which they cannot prove as well. If we are truly believers of Christ, and believers of bible, our FAITH and the HOLY SPIRIT will work on us to give us wisdom to understand what happened in the past and the reality that is working in our lives today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

The world has slowly but surely been evolving toward "scientific proven data" to be their perceived idea of the only proof of hstorical events' legitimacy -- the lack of which, they consider the total basis to claim "not true". Sadly, this theory has been strongly adapted by "liberal Christian scholars". Again, sadly, their motivation seems to be either 1) jump on the bandwagon of "worldly views" to stay popular, or 2) possibly a selfish need to be a part of (their perceived notion of) ground-breaking, astounding evidence against Christ's resurrection, which is contrary to Christian belief. Either way, it is all about them and the fact that "Divine intervention by God alone" is squeezed right out of their equation. If they can convince "the world" of this, then the topic/controversy of Christ's resurrection would be, in their erroneous perception, the biggest "newsmaker" in the world. (Again, fortifying their perceived notion of "self greatness"). They indeed, in the end, are achieving the exact opposite -- their own condemnation for not accepting God's word as it is written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read and reread this question and am having difficulty in coming up with an answer. Some scholars have to have an answer for everything. Something can only be black or white with nothing in between. In my belief I believe in the resurrection and the cross. We cannot have one without the other. Something marvelous can happen and never be repaeated. Is this not what happened in theEaster story???

The resurrection cannot be complete without the ascension. Part of my being a Christian is that I have the faith and love to believe in this historical act. To date it has never been repeated. Aren't we blessed that we can have a faith to believe in it.

Don't know if I have answered the question or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

First, these scholars lack Faith and Faith is the sustainer.

Why call oneself a Chrisitan if you don't believe? One can't believe in Jesus and not believe in the resurrection. Whole heartedly believing in the entire exisitance, death, resurrection and acsension of Jesus Christ the Son of God, our Savior.

Scholars are rarely humble people. It would be difficult for them to profess something that is greater than themselves or greater than their explanations or their realm of their own understanding.

All of their explanations are based upon the physical realm of understanding and not the spiritual realm of understanding. Because of this they lack the faith needed to see beyond the physical realm of these events occurring.

Scholars have always tried to disprove God, Take under consideration what was said about Moses, they tried to say he was performing parlor tricks with the snakes and that when God allowed Moses to turn the the sea red, it was just the red sand beneath it that was causing it to turn red, And I saw a television documentary about the Exodus that stated that the Red Sea wasn't divided. Their claim was that at a certain time of the year the sea becomes dry in parts and that God did not divide it but it was at that time of the year for the sea was dry. And lets not forget about Sodom and Gomorrhia there was claim that it was sulphuric gases below the city that destroyed these cities etc...So they have always tried to discredited God's power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

Had you asked the question, "Why do liberal scholars try to explain away the resurrection?" I would have had a different answer. But "liberal Christian Scholars" is a totally different thing? I try not to judge people, but, to think of anyone trying to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ would seem to say that they are not Christian at all. The essence of the Christian faith is that Christ was born of a virgin, (They try to do away with that one too) died on the cross, and was resurrected on the third day. That is the basics of being a christian is it not? They are still arguing about creation as well. Some things you just have to accept by faith. After all what is faith? Believing in things you have not seen. Faith is not believing because you see, its believing in spite of what you can't see. A christian must believe in the Word of God. These people apparently do not. Im not trying to bash anyone but one has to ask What is a Christian?

If these scolars can put enough doubt and unbelief in the hearts of the saved, What can they do to the unsaved? Many times the tools that satan uses best are the so called christians who actually aren't - but are deceivers set forth to confuse. The biggest sin the church faces today is the sin of unbelief! Many are full of it and don't even realize it. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psalms 118:8 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (KJV)

This also goes for fear, the fear of what others may think. That is the main motivater of so called scholars who take away from what the bible says or add to it. If I was to take a pen and cross out everything in the bible that takes faith, I could begin with either Genesis and work toward Revelation or with Revelation and work backwards, after removing everything which takes faith the only thing remaining would be Satan and me.

Without faith, who do you beilive made the world? Without faith, who do you believe became a sacrifice for your sin? Without faith, what do you belive this sacrifice will gain you?

Psalms 118:8 can be found in the center of the bible and is the central theme of the bible, conservative and liberal alike who have forgotten this point are teaching from a bible filled with holes. The holes in their bibles are like holes in a dam and trying to fill them with mans logic is like trying to patch a dam with sand.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q1. What do you think motivates liberal Christian scholars to explain away the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why would they claim that it is unhistorical more than some other event in the first century?

What I think motivates the liberal scholar on this issue:

1. What was taught to them in seminary by their trusted liberal seminary professors

2. Peer pressure

3. Not really being willing to reconsider their point of view i.e. not really being very liberal

4. Like everyone else, there's job security linvolved even though one is tenured

Unhistorical claim: To me it's inexplicable other than basic stubborness [the unwillingness to admit a mistake or error, which is a continuing problem in the academy.] I guess, bottom line, is that it's a faith issue and, what one wants to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that Jesus is raised from the dead, the first fruits of all creation. I am having a bit of trouble being distracted by the language in this lesson, though. I sense that I am supposed to be angry at liberal Christian scholars as I read this rhetoric. The liberal Christian is not my enemy. The scholar is not my enemy. No matter how conservative my viewpoint, nor how liberal theirs, our common enemy is God's adversary (also known as beelzebub, the devil, satan, etc). I would like to see language that addresses resurrection without vilifying people.

Mindy,

I sense the same, although I think it may be unintentional. Soewhere doesn't it say "Work out our faih in fear and trembling."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others I am struggling to answer this without being judgmental or critical, but here I go...

Liberal christians have created their own god to suit themselves thus they have to concoct theories to get their names in lights and sell some books. A classic is the 'davinci code' all the hype about the movie and the book, just so Dan Brown can get his name in lights and hopefully sell more books and everyone will see the movie...and we know how that flopped. It seems that when it comes close to Easter all the theorists and rumour mongers raise their heads.

As some others have said the key is faith...Hebrews 1:1- "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

And I guess this hasn't answered the question we have been given, has it :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal scholars are uncomfortable with what they cannot prove using the western scientific method. The resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be proved using this closed worldview. The resurrection of Jesus Christ becomes unhistorical because it cannot be proved using the western scientific method or explained in naturalistic terms. So to the liberal scholar, it didn't happen the way the gospel writers recorded the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bodily resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity and it is a faith iand spiritual issue and not an academic issue. The liberals scholars cannot prove the bodily resurrection by experiments or other physical parameters of the world. They thus do not beileve in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal scholars explain away the resurrection because they don't really believe the truth about Jesus Christ. They have put more stock in the books rather than in The Book & Faith. To say it is not historical is foolish. It tells me that they have not truly spent time in many books of history to try to disprove it. I believe the Holy Spirit has been blocked by these individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...