Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Implications of Resurrection

Did Jesus physically raise from the dead, or rather did he, in some transcendent way, merely remain to be alive in the "hearts" of his followers?

Is what really happened or didn't really happen actually that important?

I believe it is.

Do we sometimes get so caught up in the eschatological implications of the event of Easter (the tomb is empty) that we end up missing some important implications of the event here and now?

Paul is the first person to write about Christianity, his letters were around before any of the gospel accounts. So it was Paul who was actually the first to write about the resurrection of Jesus.

Paul doesn't seem too concerned with going into some long detailed description in order to prove that Jesus of Nazareth came out of the tomb. Instead, Paul urges his readers to participate in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Resurrection was something to be lived out not merely something to be cognitively believed. (Not claiming that Paul didn't see an importance in a bodily resurrection here, it's just not the point of this post.)

The intent here is not to get into the argument of "did it happen or did it not happen", but rather to simply provoke thought.

Do we miss important implications?

Is this why Easter seems boring to some of us?

Can the historicity and literal reading of such events, such as the resurrection, get in the way of us living out and being transformed by the events themselves? (this is somewhat o a paraphrase of Marcus Borg)

Are we so focused on what the resurrection gets us, that we reduce it's implications to mere individualistic eschatology, a future in heaven somewhere else and therefore ignore the endless implications and effects the resurrection has on the present?

1 comment:

paul said...

Yes. Yes and......Yes.