And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. — Brenner T

There could be a mystic interpretation of this quote which shatters the otherwise dull Christian rote literalist dogma.

Meister Eckhart might've referred to the virgin birth as something that happens inside of us. When
"Christ resurrects", it might happen somewhere other than just a literal tomb and a historical body 2000+ years ago.

In Eckhart's vision, God is primarily fecund. Out of overabundance of love the fertile God gives birth to the Son, the Word in all of us. Clearly,[d] this is rooted in the Neoplatonic notion of "ebullience; boiling over" of the One that cannot hold back its abundance of Being. Eckhart had imagined the creation not as a "compulsory" overflowing (a metaphor based on a common hydrodynamic picture), but as the free act of will of the triune nature of Deity (refer Trinitarianism). — Wikipedia: Meister Eckhart

I think the best that can be done with this is to acknowledge that if you're a Christian who believes in the resurrection, and you do not believe in the resurrection, then you are not a Christian who believes in the resurrection. And no progress beyond this without a tedious and contentious fight over the meaning of words. Which door being at the moment shut, is best kept shut.

It comes down to beliefs, and there's no accounting for beliefs.

The simple answer is yes.

From its beginning there have been Christians on both sides of this. A couple of things muddy the waters. Resurrection was a common Jewish belief before Jesus. Who would be resurrected and whether it was a physical or spiritual resurrection divided groups of believers.

Paul seems to state in strong words that if Jesus Christ did not actually rise from the dead after 3 days in the tomb, the foundation of Christianity is a farce — Brenner T

The question here is whether one can be a Christian if one is not a follower of Paul's teachings. Again the answer is yes.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — Brenner T

Yes. There are Christians who are not even certain that the Jesus of the New Testament even lived. Perhaps the Jesus story was based on some radical teacher after whom a mythology was built. They see the narrative and tradition as providing lessons and a way of life through allegory. Belief is complex.

So I am a Christian. I believe I am the first Christian to post in this thread. There are a lot of folk around here who are not Christians, know very little about Christianity, and love to opine on Christianity. Indeed, I have literally never seen more ignorance of Christianity anywhere else in my life than on TPF. So your question is much better suited to a theology forum or a Christian forum given that many people on this forum are hostile to both religion and Christianity. With that out of the way...

I specifically am interested in two questions: 1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — Brenner T

First, in 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul is not making a primarily epistemic point. This is the lynchpin of his argument:

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. — 1 Corinthians 15:17-18, RSV

We could put it this way: <Jesus is the conqueror of sin and death; the definitive conquering of sin and death occurred in the resurrection; therefore if the resurrection is a lie, then Jesus has not conquered sin and death but has instead been conquered by them, and Christians hope in a lie. They hope in a conqueror who is in fact not a conqueror>.

Christianity historically requires the belief that Jesus conquered sin and death, and that we therefore are (or will be) saved from sin and death (by Jesus). But maybe by "belief in Christianity" one means something entirely different, like, "Trying to be a nice person." Certainly you can try to be a nice person even if you do not believe that Jesus was raised; you just can't hold that Jesus conquered sin and death.

-

Note particularly the claim, "...your faith is futile." Suppose your island is on fire and you are forced to flee. There is a man selling boats. He tells you that the boat he is selling is a sturdy vessel, capable of navigating on the sea and easily able to reach the mainland. You believe him; you have faith; you buy the boat from him. You take the boat and complete the first nautical mile of your journey, and your companion says, "If this boat is not seaworthy, our faith is futile. Our faith is in vain." That's what St. Paul means. "If Jesus has not been raised then the guy who sold you this boat was a liar, and you were a fool to believe him."

I think the best that can be done with this is to acknowledge that if you're a Christian who believes in the resurrection, and you do not believe in the resurrection, then you are not a Christian who believes in the resurrection. — tim wood

Brilliant stuff here, lol.

I am not entirely sure what the original post is asking.

This comment does not directly answer the original post's question:

It seems that, if you accept the historicity of Jesus, and accounts given of the apostles such as the martyrdom of Peter, and if you also deny that Jesus rose after suffering a brutal execution at the hands of the Romans, then Peter would have to be just the least intelligent person imaginable to continue to preach about Jesus.

So either early Christians like Peter were all complete idiots, or he was an individual of heroic virtue. But where would such heroics originate? In other words, if someone considers as though they were Peter, why bother preaching if none of it is true?

I guess? Christianity today is about belief in Jesus's rising. Even if it never happened, the Nicean Creed still exists and Christians (by definition) believe in it.

But there's tension with the idea that the Nicean creed defines Christianity because Jesus's earliest followers seemed more concerned with living a certain way and having a certain worldview than commitment to dogmas about supernatural events in the past. So today you get people who clearly don't seem to care about what Jesus had to say but will insist on the reality of his resurrection and this group is apparently more "Christian" than those who actually followed Jesus in his day when there was no resurrection to believe in but heard his teachings straight from his mouth.

can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — Brenner T

What do you mean by "a belief in Christianity"?

There are many Christians who consider the Resurrection to be a myth. The story does not need to gain its power from being literally true. Some religious thinkers who held views along these lines include - Paul Tillich, Don Cupitt, Rudolf Bultmann, John Shelby Spong, David Friedrich Strauss. I grew up within the Baptist tradition and was sent to a religious school. We were taught to read the Bible as allegorical. Of course, none of this will stop some Christians from considering such views as blasphemous or 'not truly Christian.' But should we care about that? The history of Christianity is one of acrimonious sectarian divisions and differences, with the followers of Christ often trying to murder each other in the name of brotherly love.

Despite an "allegorical" reading you do acknowledge that the Bible describes real events. Surely you don't deny the babylonian exile? Or that Israel fought the Assyrians in the 8th century BC? So how far back before it becomes "allegory?"

Exactly. Before the rise of Fundamentalism in the wake of the Born Again movement of the 1970s, many if not most Christians were comfortable with viewing the scriptures as a moral guidebook instead of a history textbook.

New York is a real place, this doesn't mean Spiderman is real. I'm not getting into the weeds about what bits in the Bible may be historical and which bits are legends and myth. Plenty of that stuff on line already.

:up:

Agree with the quoted verse from Paul. I don't self-identify as Christian, nor attend Christian services apart from those associated with social events such as weddings. However like many I'm 'culturally Christian' and not atheist.

An anecdote. Many years ago, there was a minor flap in the media because some archaeologist claimed to have found the physical remnants of Jesus in an ossuary. There was an enormous hue and cry about it. We were discussing it around the dinner table. One of my very near relatives, no longer with us, was opining that it didn't really undermine Jesus' core message of love for all, tolerance, etc etc. There was some agreement from others present. I became quite insistent that, no, if Jesus didn't physically ascend, then it completely changes the nature of the Christian faith. I said that you couldn't reject that belief and remain meaningfully Christian. At which point I had a cup of tea thrown over me. But I still maintain that belief.

So I am a Christian. I believe I am the first Christian to post in this thread. There are a lot of folk around here who are not Christians, know very little about Christianity, and love to opine on Christianity. — Leontiskos

It is evident that your own knowledge of Christianity is far less extensive than you seem to give yourself credit for. From its beginnings Christianity has always been diverse and pluralistic. One does not need to be a Christian to read about the history of Christianity.

You rely on Paul, but Paul himself admits the fissure between his teachings and that of Jesus' direct disciples. Pauline Christianity does not represent the beliefs and practices of all Christians, then, now, or in the long period between.

You might reasonably say that your own beliefs are based on the resurrection, or even that the beliefs of many Christians is based on the resurrection, but in the face of the evidence to the contrary it is not reasonable to claim that this must hold true for all Christians.

You rely on Paul — Fooloso4

The OP is about Paul's words, which is why I commented on Paul. Did you read the OP?

You are not a Christian, you have no formal theological training, you constantly display ignorance in this area, and you are outright hostile towards professing Christians. I hope the OP finds a more serious opinion.

if Jesus didn't physically ascend, then it completely changes the nature of the Christian faith — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that's right. I think even those who tend to oppose Christianity like Hitchens or Dawkins are right to take this line on the resurrection. It is a keystone to the religion.

Theologically, the resurrection has been central to Christianity from the very beginning. But nowadays the inquiry is epistemic. We say, "If Jesus rose, then Christianity is true," and then we go on to try to decide whether Jesus rose. The theological and historical/apologetical questions are interrelated, but also rather different, and I don't see how the facticity of the resurrection is to be definitively adjudicated. You can make arguments for or against it, but it will never be proved or disproved by historical methods. From this perspective of the credibility of Christianity, it is but one part of the whole. So if the OP is "not sure if Jesus actually rose," he is not disbarred from Christianity when considered as an inquirer, and yet he is at best in via ("on the way") towards the fullness of Christian belief.

One book which tries to line up two different perspectives is The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, co-authored by N. T. Wright and Marcus Borg.

didn't really undermine Jesus' core message of love for all, tolerance, etc etc. — Wayfarer

I have personally witnessed this approach lead to disillusionment, for good reason. It is a "religion" without substance. The mere emulation or appreciation of a historical figure is not religion. To take that route is to try to make substantial something which is inherently insubstantial.

I've been to a lot of Evangelical churches over the years (Baptist and non-denominational), regularly attending some. Also some Methodist and Presbyterian. I have regularly attended Catholic services, went to a Catholic university/seminary, and spent time at retreats at their monasteries. I currently attend an Antiochian Orthodox Church. In any of these disparate venues, I am confident that the denial of the Resurrection would be considered the gravest of heresies. This is going to hold true for my Mormon and Amish neighbors as well.

No doubt, there are people who call themselves "Christians" who have deflated the faith into some sort of allegorical/philosophical/cultural complex of sorts. This was a "thing" in early 20th century Anglican intellectual circles for instance (C.S. Lewis has a bit of fun with this trend in "The Great Divorce.") There are certainly people who embrace such positions today. Jordan Peterson seems to be suggesting something like this, although I haven't paid too much attention to him. People advocating "cultural Christianity," (e.g. Elon Musk now, lol) seem to be in the vein.

But such "Christians" certainly can't affirm the Nicene or Apostles' Creed, nor any of the Ecumenical Councils. And they clearly fall outside even the broadest definitions of Christianity that most Christians themselves would recognize.

There are similar issues with any popular lable of course.

Agree. I think I understand the radical nature of the Resurrection. It's not reasonable, or 'nice', or comfortable. I guess the fact that I believe it, makes me Christian in some sense, whether I go to Church or not. (Maybe I'm a part of the 'Church Invisible'.) That said, I couldn't in conscience recite or believe in the Nicene Creed, I have some fundamental disagreements with orthodoxy which is why I declined Confirmation.

In any of these disparate venues, I am confident that the denial of the Resurrection would be considered the gravest of heresies. This is going to hold true for my Mormon and Amish neighbors. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No doubt. But what, exactly, of it? What, exactly, is the significance of being said to hold certain views that some people say are heretical? Not just a rhetorical question, but one answerable and that should be answered.

Granted there was a time, and in some places even now, holding certain views - note I do not call them beliefs - or not holding certain beliefs, can get you hurt or killed, but that not to the point.

It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it. See Judges through Kings. If you only focus on the New Testament I get how you can leave with the "New York City and Spiderman" analogy. Although even the NT contains some valuable historical information, although of a much more condensed date range. The New Testament, IMHO, is a completely different animal than the Old.

Agree. I think I understand the radical nature of the Resurrection. It's not reasonable, or 'nice', or comfortable. — Wayfarer

Yes.

I guess the fact that I believe it, makes me Christian in some sense, whether I go to Church or not. — Wayfarer

Interesting. :up:

That said, I couldn't in conscience recite or believe in the Nicene Creed, I have some fundamental disagreements with orthodoxy which is why I declined Confirmation. — Wayfarer

I was talking to an elderly friend recently and they told me that the whole class cheated on the "Confirmation test" in their Episcopal church. It was a funny story, but it is good that you were more serious about the whole thing. :grin: I considered declining Confirmation as well, but I was more or less made to go through with it.

It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it — BitconnectCarlos

No question. Most scriptures from world religions are fascinating documents which contain historic and cultural narratives.

But my point is not about atheism - it is about theologians and Christians who are non-literalists.

I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text? Are they hopelessly misinformed? Is there a different Bible? Are they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naïveté?

Bishop John Shelby Spong

I think it is a good quesion to ask such believers - which bits matter and which bits do not and how did you determine why?

The Spiderman comment is a simple distillation of the idea that even if a book contains valuable information about history and culture, this does not mean the entire book is true. This is actually a quip I first heard from a Jesuit Priest.

Well, I suppose it's sort of like asking: "can I be a 'Marxist' while rejecting dialectical materialism and the workers' ownership of the means of production, and while embracing neoliberal economic policies, voting for Donald Trump, and idolizing Reagan and Thatcher?"

I mean, sure, you can call yourself a Marxist, but you shouldn't be surprised if 99+% of Marxist and all the mainline Marxist authorities/institutions in the world reject your claim to be a Marxist.

There are certainly people who embrace such positions today. Jordan Peterson seems to be suggesting something like this, although I haven't paid too much attention to him. People advocating "cultural Christianity," (e.g. Elon Musk now, lol) seem to be in the vein. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and I am curious whether the OP is thinking along such lines.

Well, I suppose it's sort of like asking: "can I be a 'Marxist' while rejecting dialectical materialism and the workers' ownership of the means of production, and while embracing neoliberal economic policies, voting for Donald Trump, and idolizing Reagan and Thatcher?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Definitely maybe. I've sort of thought of the neo-cons as Marxists who gave up on class struggle -- where there's nothing primitive about primitive accumulation.

But it'd be an odd duck who committed to such notions rather than cynically used them.

I considered declining Confirmation as well, but I was more or less made to go through with it. — Leontiskos

I was sent to an Anglican school, but father was very unsympathetic to religion so left it up to me. Although to be honest, part of it was that it seemed to require a lot more homework. Also, this was happening at around that time:



which seemed a good deal more interesting than Sunday School :-)

- Haha, makes sense.

More to the question of the OP: I think that the belief in the resurrection is pretty important. At least it's on this basis that I argue that Mormans, for all their idiosyncrasies, are still basically Christian: They really do believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and that we can be saved by baptism by immersion and following the rules, while acknowledging we'll fall short because we are not the Christ and so will need forgiveness (grace).

They do it different, but at least for the Mormans who really believe in the theology it's hard for me to separate them from Christianity because of the belief that Christ was risen from the dead and he conquers death and sin, as @Leontiskos said.

But, also, while I have my two cents I'd prefer to leave this adjudication to thems who want to be Christian.

Not really philosophy more text-specific analysis, but if it's permitted.

Generally, a person can identify as whatever they please. Certainly schools of thought, ways of life, and religions hold doctrines that one must adhere to or accept to be considered a true follower or not "hypocritical." "Problem", per se, is that, like most things, different people agree and disagree on different things, hence, in this case, why certain religions have unique denominations, often a result of what was- in many cases, at first- a small splinter group or movement. Christianity is no exception. Protestants believe one thing, Baptists believe another, Catholics, another still- to the point others have stark disagreements where one views the other as "simply wrong". I believe a few "popular" disagreements are works-based salvation vs. faith-based salvation, per-tribulation Rapture vs. post, etc. One who believes one thing and not the other generally views the other person as "lost" or, again, "just wrong" or even not a true whatever the title or group happens to be.

Whether or not Christ was raised from the dead (physically, hence the purported visual apparition allegedly witnessed by followers) seems to me like an incredibly minor detail based on the underlying context of Abrahamic faith (which again different followers hold different beliefs as far as what the purported Messiah is, signifies, and functionally "does") If I'm not mistaken, Jewish prophecy states the Messiah would be a military leader who would ensure them a victory against their enemies. Christianity states Messiah (literally messenger), as exactly that, a messenger who gave men a heavenly decree that the Old Testament is no more, and those who follow the god of Abraham have new (more lax) laws to follow, as well as, well, to put it casually, something of an "update" that mortals are now allowed in Heaven provided they meet certain conditions. This, if I'm not mistaken, is a change from the way it was before as Heaven was previously reserved only for angels and divine beings (and possibly those who God "likes", I guess, not sure- but based on the doctrines of the faith an all-powerful god can in fact do anything, so, yeah.) If I'm also not mistaken, Jews generally believe Jesus was not the prophecized Messiah and was either A.) a liar and/or B.) just some guy trying to make everyone feel better. Which means they await the true Messiah who, as they believe, has yet to come.

To your point, you are a Christian if you believe in Christianity, the idea Jesus existed and, presumably, was the son of God, and/or by extension (though again depending on belief the two are not mutually-exclusive), the foretold king/prophecized Messiah foretold in Jewish texts. You could be a "bad" or "untrue" or "lost" Christian, I suppose, why not? To answer your question one asks the opposite: what is a non-Christian? Typical answer being someone who "doesn't believe in the Bible" or that Jesus existed and performed all or most of the purported doings and activities alleged, whose word is the Truth, believes such, and strives to live as Christ (rather, God via Christ) commanded or stated one should. (You can believe in all of the above, but reject the idea, and live in willful opposition to the alleged new ("Christ's") commandments, that would make one a non-Christian).

Basically, Jews and Christians ultimately believe in the same Messiah, one just believes the other is wrong. Christians believing the ancient scripture was fulfilled and as a result anything commanded or proclaimed by Jesus is divine and eternal law, Jews believing said prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and nothing has changed from when God purportedly gave Moses the Ten Commandments to before the day Jesus was born to now (and naturally as a result Christians are misled, at worst damning themselves and those around them or at best wasting their time). Kind of the same as what they believe of them.

To put it casually: was it the real slim shady or not? Therein lies the only divide between Judaism and Christianity.

Personally, I believe in a compassionate, all-knowing God. Which means God obviously knows that people are pretty dumb. If you're a good person, and there's a Heaven mortals are allowed to reside in, you'll probably end up there. If not, mankind is pretty boned any way you slice it.

(The reason I call this non-philosophy is because the ultimate goal of your question is a result of what a purported text or school of thought ultimately resolves to. It's an explicit yes or no, 1 or 0 binary based on explicit, static information [whether the information is true or false is not the issue] and nothing more. Meaning, logically, the answer remains the same whether or not you are a devout Christian or an atheist who views this as a discussion on par with what Santa Claus' favorite cookie is.)