Do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?

[RI]

Option 2 for me.

I believe that a spirit is not a physical thing, but rather the metaphorical totality of a person. It is their personality, their thoughts, their memories, their actions, their philosophy, their zeitgeist, their very way of living. As such, I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus was not the reanimation of his body, but rather the reaffirmation of his Body, his followers to the spirit of Jesus, to the philosophy that Jesus taught. Though he was killed, his spirit was revived and lived on in his disciples, eventually ascending the stature of a mere man, becoming instead an idea, an immortal dedication to the virtues of love, peace, hope, and community.

Similarly, the Second Coming is not a reappearance of a long dead man into this world, but rather the appearance of his spirit, this Holy Spirit, in each of us as individuals. By accepting his spirit, by accepting the very ideas of love, peace, hope, community, and reciprocity into our lives, we are bringing Jesus into this world ourselves.

[RI]

Option 2 for me.

I believe that a spirit is not a physical thing, but rather the metaphorical totality of a person. It is their personality, their thoughts, their memories, their actions, their philosophy, their zeitgeist, their very way of living. As such, I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus was not the reanimation of his body, but rather the reaffirmation of his Body, his followers to the spirit of Jesus, to the philosophy that Jesus taught. Though he was killed, his spirit was revived and lived on in his disciples, eventually ascending the stature of a mere man, becoming instead an idea, an immortal dedication to the virtues of love, peace, hope, and community.

Similarly, the Second Coming is not a reappearance of a long dead man into this world, but rather the appearance of his spirit, this Holy Spirit, in each of us as individuals. By accepting his spirit, by accepting the very ideas of love, peace, hope, community, and reciprocity into our lives, we are bringing Jesus into this world ourselves.

in other words: you're not a Christian

Well, I'm at best a Christian-Pantheist.

But really, does believing in a more metaphorical interpretation of the Bible necessarily make someone not a Christian?

[RI]

Option 2 for me.

I believe that a spirit is not a physical thing, but rather the metaphorical totality of a person. It is their personality, their thoughts, their memories, their actions, their philosophy, their zeitgeist, their very way of living. As such, I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus was not the reanimation of his body, but rather the reaffirmation of his Body, his followers to the spirit of Jesus, to the philosophy that Jesus taught. Though he was killed, his spirit was revived and lived on in his disciples, eventually ascending the stature of a mere man, becoming instead an idea, an immortal dedication to the virtues of love, peace, hope, and community.

Similarly, the Second Coming is not a reappearance of a long dead man into this world, but rather the appearance of his spirit, this Holy Spirit, in each of us as individuals. By accepting his spirit, by accepting the very ideas of love, peace, hope, community, and reciprocity into our lives, we are bringing Jesus into this world ourselves.

in other words: you're not a Christian

Well, I'm at best a Christian-Pantheist.

But really, does believing in a more metaphorical interpretation of the Bible necessarily make someone not a Christian?

yes.  and, in addition, it makes a complete mockery out of the single most important point of the New Testament.

Read 1Cor 15, for it is directed at your attempt to gain Jesus without accepting his literal bodily resurrection:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015;&version=31;

Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 explicitly says that Jesus had a bodily resurrection. It even says, "it is raised a spiritual body", explicitly stating that resurrection is not of a physical nature. It does say that Jesus appeared to his apostles, but it does not say that it was in bodily form. It could just as easily be his spirit appearing to them.

[RI]

Option 2 for me.

I believe that a spirit is not a physical thing, but rather the metaphorical totality of a person. It is their personality, their thoughts, their memories, their actions, their philosophy, their zeitgeist, their very way of living. As such, I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus was not the reanimation of his body, but rather the reaffirmation of his Body, his followers to the spirit of Jesus, to the philosophy that Jesus taught. Though he was killed, his spirit was revived and lived on in his disciples, eventually ascending the stature of a mere man, becoming instead an idea, an immortal dedication to the virtues of love, peace, hope, and community.

Similarly, the Second Coming is not a reappearance of a long dead man into this world, but rather the appearance of his spirit, this Holy Spirit, in each of us as individuals. By accepting his spirit, by accepting the very ideas of love, peace, hope, community, and reciprocity into our lives, we are bringing Jesus into this world ourselves.

In that sens everyone can resurrect and have a second coming, no?

In a sense, yes. I believe that is how we live on. If our spirit is carried on by others, then it does not die. What exactly the nature of our spirit is is determined by our actions. The spirit of Jesus is special because it is more than just the spirit of the man; it has become the spirit of goodness itself.

As to the actual nature of the 'afterlife', I am torn. Part of me believes that what I just said is all there is, and part of me doesn't. I will continue to ponder this.

the New Testament clearly portrays that Jesus body was NOT left in the grave, but rather was transformed into a glorious body upon his resurrection.  The exact nature his physical flesh took on upon his resurrection is NOT stated in scripture, but it is clear that his physical body was transformed and came back to life by the resurrection.

anyone that denies Jesus' body was resurrected is simply not a Christian.

I believe that the new 'Body' of Christ was not of physical personhood, but, rather, more than that; his followers are his Body. Anyone who believes in the spirit of Jesus is part of this Body. His spirit acts through each person individually.

I do not mind if you do not consider me a Christian. It makes little difference to me. My beliefs are different than yours, and I accept that.

[RI]

realisticidealist,

what definition of "spirit" are you using?  are you talking about a literal spirit-being, or are you referring to "spirit" as a state of mind?

I am using the same definition that I used in the OP.

because, Christianity is about the literal spirit-being...the actual person.

According to your (literal) interpretation, which could be right, but it is not mine.

By Christ living in me, it literally means that the spirit-being of Jesus Christ lives in my body, and that occurred PRIOR to my acceptance of his teachings.  Likewise, someone who accepts his teachings and attempts to put them into practice may NOT have yet received the spirit-being of Jesus Christ, rather they may simply be attempting to obey.

Once again, your interpretation. You choose to accept the Bible as literal, while I see it as much more metaphorical.

Again, receiving the Holy Spirit (aka Spirit of Jesus Christ) does NOT simply mean you receive the intention (spirit) of his teachings, rather it means you are literally receiving the spirit-being of Jesus Christ into your own being.

Again, I do not believe in 'spirit-beings', so your interpretation is automatically different than mine.

Have you ever read the New Testament?

Many times. I even attended a Christian school for several years.

Well, it is interesting that you believe that, but scripture directly contradicts that notion.  We are explicitly told that there was nothing left in the tomb, and that, while there was a clear change in Christ's physical personage (he was not recognized on the road) that there was a real body present.

If taken literally, yes, you are correct. I do not do so.

Anyway, I did not mean this thread to be about me...

[RI]

I suppose that the simple truth of the matter is that my beliefs are an expression of pantheism placed into a Christian mindset. The basis of my beliefs is not the text of the Bible, but instead an interpretation of the Bible through the lense of a non-Christian. I suppose that I am of an atheistic, scientific mind and a Christian, wondrous heart, and this is my attempt to bridge that gap. I believe what I do because, to me, it reconciles the nature of the universe as observed with the supernatural world, and, in doing so, simplifies the complexities and absolves the contradictions that I otherwise find between the two.

It is true that the Bible, taken literally, does not support me. But that is ok. I am not looking for its support or its approval, or yours jmfcst.

As such, I take what I believe only on faith, the faith that if I continue to search along my spiritual journey I will find pieces of truth here and there that will eventually add up to something more. What I believe today may not be what I believe tomorrow because I may find something new I never before saw. To me, that is the intrigue of the journey of faith, that you never know what God has yet to show you or what is around the corner, and that what is there might just be more than you could ever previously imagine.

[RI]

I suppose that the simple truth of the matter is that my beliefs are an expression of pantheism placed into a Christian mindset. The basis of my beliefs is not the text of the Bible, but instead an interpretation of the Bible through the lense of a non-Christian. I suppose that I am of an atheistic, scientific mind and a Christian, wondrous heart, and this is my attempt to bridge that gap. I believe what I do because, to me, it reconciles the nature of the universe as observed with the supernatural world, and, in doing so, simplifies the complexities and absolves the contradictions that I otherwise find between the two.

It is true that the Bible, taken literally, does not support me. But that is ok. I am not looking for its support or its approval, or yours jmfcst.

As such, I take what I believe only on faith, the faith that if I continue to search along my spiritual journey I will find pieces of truth here and there that will eventually add up to something more. What I believe today may not be what I believe tomorrow because I may find something new I never before saw. To me, that is the intrigue of the journey of faith, that you never know what God has yet to show you or what is around the corner, and that what is there might just be more than you could ever previously imagine.

Well, the Catholic Church is technically pantheist, as it sees itself as the one Universal Church (thus not even recognizing the possibility of other options), as is implicit in it's very name.  I am Catholic.  I don't agree with what you are saying, nor does my Church.  You are going to have to come up with something more than just "I'm a pantheist."

I am not claiming to be a Catholic. I am referring to pantheism as "the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God." I take this to mean that God and the Universe are coextensive. I am not familiar enough with the teachings of Catholicism to know what they take 'pantheist' to mean, but I believe we have different definitions.

[RI]

After collecting my thoughts a bit on this, I have a few questions. Take the Catholic Church for example, and forgive me if I am just being ignorant. They openly believe in the theory of evolution, and in doing so believe that the Book of Genesis is inherently metaphorical in its depiction of the creation of the Earth, and, by extention, that Noah's Flood is aliteral as well. I have also personally attended masses where the priest declared that many of Jesus's miracles, such as walking on water, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, and healing the blind were metaphorical events that did not happen on a physical level, but a metaphorical and spiritual level.

As such, it is clear that the Catholic Church acknowledges that not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but rather it contains "stories with purposes" meant to tell something to the reader about their lives and not about actual events. Being this the case, on what basis does the Church discriminate between metaphorical stories and historical stories? How can they tell the difference between them without doing so arbitrarily? How can they assert that the Resurrection was literal but not Genesis? or the Flood? or any other "story with a purpose"?

The same question applies to any non-fundamentalist Christian church.