Is the Resurrection the Next Step in Evolution?

Please forgive the length of this post. But the words above remind me (loudly you might say) of these words (which I love!) from Book IV Chapter 11 of CS Lewis' Mere Christianity:

"Perhaps a modern man can understand the Christian idea best if he takes it in connection with Evolution. Everyone now knows about Evolution (though, of course, some educated people disbelieve it): everyone has been told that man has evolved from lower types of life. Consequently, people often wonder "What is the next step? When is the thing beyond man going to appear?" Imaginative writers try sometimes to picture this next step-the "Superman" as they call him; but they usually only succeed in picturing someone a good deal nastier than man as we know him and then try to make up for that by sticking on extra legs or arms. But supposing the next step was to be something even more different from the earlier steps than they ever dreamed of? And is it not very likely it would be? Thousands of centuries ago huge, very heavily armoured creatures were evolved. If anyone had at that time been watching the course of Evolution he would probably have expected that it was going to go on to heavier and heavier armour. But he would have been wrong. The future had a card up its sleeve which nothing at that time would have led him to expect. It was going to spring on him little, naked, unarmoured animals which had better brains: and with those brains they were going to master the whole planet. They were not merely going to have more power than the prehistoric monsters, they were going to have a new kind of power. The next step was not only going to be different, but different with a new kind of difference. The stream of Evolution was not going to flow on in the direction in which he saw it flowing: it was in fact going to take a sharp bend.

"Now it seems to me that most of the popular guesses at the Next Step are making just the same sort of mistake. People see (or at any rate they think they see) men developing greater brains and getting greater mastery over nature. And because they think the stream is flowing in that direction, they imagine it will go on flowing in that direction. But I cannot help thinking that the Next Step will be really new; it will go off in a direction you could never have dreamed of. It would hardly be worth calling a New Step unless it did. I should expect not merely difference but a new kind of difference. I should expect not merely change but a new method of producing the change. Or, to make an Irish bull, I should expect the next stage in Evolution not to be a stage in Evolution at all: should expect the Evolution itself as a method of producing change, will be superseded. And finally, I should not be surprised if, when the thing happened, very few people noticed that it was happening.

"Now, if you care to talk in these terms, the Christian view is precisely that the Next Step has already appeared. And it is really new. It is not a change from brainy men to brainier men: it is a change that goes off in a totally different direction-a change from being creatures of God to being sons of God. The first instance appeared in Palestine two thousand years ago. In a sense, the change is not "Evolution" at all, because it is not something arising out of the natural process of events but something coming into nature from outside. But that is what I should expect. We arrived at our idea of "Evolution" from studying the past. If there are real novelties in store then of course our idea, based on the past, will not really cover them. And in fact this New Step differs from all previous ones not only in coming from outside nature but in several other ways as well.

"(1) It is not carried on by sexual reproduction. Need we be surprised at that? There was a time before sex had appeared; development used to go on by different methods. Consequently, we might have expected that there would come a time when sex disappeared, or else (which is what is actually happening) a time when sex, though it continued to exist, ceased to be the main channel of development.

"(2) At the earlier stages living organisms have had either no choice or very little choice about taking the new step. Progress was, in the main, something that happened to them, not something that they did. But the new step, the step from being creatures to being sons, is voluntary. At least, voluntary in one sense. It is not voluntary in the sense that we, of ourselves, could have chosen to take it or could even have imagined it; but it is voluntary in the sense that when it is offered to us we can refuse it. We can, if we please, shrink back: we can dig in our heels and let the new Humanity go on without us.

"(3) I have called Christ the "first instance" of the new man. But of course He is something much more than that. He is not merely a new man, one specimen of the species, but the new man. He is the origin and centre and life of all the new men. He came into the created universe, of His own will, bringing with Him the Zoe, the new life. (I mean new to us, of course: in its own place Zoe has existed for ever and ever.) And He transmits it not by heredity but by what I have called "good infection." Everyone who gets it gets it by personal contact with Him. Other men become "new" by being "in Him."

"(4) This step is taken at a different speed from the previous ones. Compared with the development of man on this planet, the diffusion of Christianity over the human race seems to go like a flash of lightning-for two thousand years is almost nothing in the history of the universe. (Never forget that we are all still "the early Christians." The present wicked and wasteful divisions between us are, let us hope, a disease of infancy: we are still teething. The outer world, no doubt, thinks just the opposite. It thinks we are dying of old age. But it has drought that so often before! Again and again it has thought Christianity was dying, dying by persecutions from without or corruptions from within, by the rise of Mohammedanism, the rise of the physical sciences, the rise of great anti-Christian revolutionary movements. But every time the world has been disappointed. Its first disappointment was over the crucifixion. The Man came to life again. In a sense-and I quite realise how frightfully unfair it must seem to them-that has been happening ever since. They keep on killing the thing that He started: and each time, just as they are patting down the earth on its grave, they suddenly hear that it is still alive and has even broken out in some new place. No wonder they hate us.)

"(5) The stakes are higher. By falling back at the earlier steps a creature lost, at the worst, its few years of life on this earth: very often it did not lose even that. By falling back at this step we lose a prize which is (in the strictest sense of the word) infinite. For now the critical moment has arrived. Century by century God has guided nature up to the point of producing creatures which can (if they will) be taken right out of nature, turned into "gods." Will they allow themselves to be taken? In a way, it is like the crisis of birth. Until we rise and follow Christ we are still parts of Nature, still in the womb of our great mother. Her pregnancy has been long and painful and anxious, but it has reached its climax. The great moment has come. Everything is ready. The Doctor has arrived. Will the birth "go off all right"? But of course it differs from an ordinary birth in one important respect. In an ordinary birth the baby has not much choice: here it has. I wonder what an ordinary baby would do if it had the choice. It might prefer to stay in the dark and warmth and safety of the womb. For of course it would think the womb meant safety. That would be just where it was wrong; for if it stays there it will die.

"On this view the thing has happened: the new step has been taken and is being taken. Already the new men are dotted here and there all over the earth."

Friend of God writes: "Forgive me for seeming arrogant, but I have something to share.

"For every argument, there is a counter-argument which in turn has another counter-argument.

"Thus being said, this is all just a bunch of useless wastes of time."

Dear Friend, you have actually made an impressively astute discovery, although you are not the first one. You have intuitively discovered what is called a ´dialectic' process, and it applies to reasoning and to reasoning about faith.

Dear Friend of God: Why then did you bother to spend your time (or waste, as you said) posting your opinion? Perhaps some people feel that their words may touch some who are seeking,and plant a seed that may lead them to God. Not all the above postings are arguments, but dialogue between people of faith and reason open to hearing what each other have to say. And I do recall that Jesus also said the harvest is great but the laborers are few. Peace.

Forgive me for seeming arrogant, but I have something to share.

For every argument, there is a counter-argument which in turn has another counter-argument.

Thus being said, this is all just a bunch of useless wastes of time.

People believe in what they want to believe and are very rarely purswaded otherwise.

Now I don't agree with the post iether (i before e except after c :) ), but where does this need for lyrical warfare come from.

There is really now need for arguments or critisizing of a persons character or beliefs and being blatently rude. This doesnt give anyone any respect.

People listen to who they love and respect, not random internet bloggers.

Stop wasting time ranting and expressing to people who dont even care what you say or what you believe and go spend some time with your familly and teach those who look towards you for guidance. Did Jesus spend any ammount of time arguing points such as this. No. Why give perls to swine. Jesus even went as far as to speak in parrables to hide his words from the wicked and from those who would not understand because of there arrogance. He spent his time loving and caring and teaching his followers, which is what we should be doing.

:P

One of the greatest aspects of Teilhard's writing is that of hope. This is quite evident in Teilhard's writings on the theosphere...humans in contact with God. It is when humans deny themselves contact with God that debates arise as to His existence, and sadly, rejection of God in our culture results. But there is HOPE: "While the entities or forms, created by Christ's love, at the beginning of their cosmos push upward, the resurrected Christ pulls them with his love, towards the definitve encounter with Him, and through Him with the Father." Teilhard points the universe back to the God with whom the world desperately needs to reconnect.

One of the greatest aspects of Teilhard's writing is that of hope. This is quite evident in Teilhard's writings on the theosphere...humans in contact with God. It is when humans deny themselves contact with God that debates arise as to His existence, and sadly, rejection of God in our culture results. But there is HOPE: "While the entities or forms, created by Christ's love, at the beginning of their cosmos push upward, the resurrected Christ pulls them with his love, towards the definitve encounter with Him, and through Him with the Father." Teilhard points the universe back to the God with whom the world desperately needs to reconnect.

The Catholic Church indeed censured Teilhard yet he never left the church or the priesthood as he could easily have done, and continued celebrating the sacraments.

The church cannot accept his (or any) cosmology integrating Christian revelation and science because while the former is perfectly true, the latter is subject to improvements. Any complete integration would render the truth of revelation a speculative venture, which it is not.

Stephen Jay Gould would probably have trouble with Teilhard as well. There are questions, some fundamental and others less so, that have not been answered by science. Accordingly there cannot be an official and definitive Christian scientific cosmology, not even Teilhard's. That does not mean that Teilhard's work does not have tremendous value at this time.

Dear Fr Dr Reese

A belated Happy Easter to you from breathtakingly beautiful Sydney in Australia! Jesus Christ is risen, Alleluia! Personally of course I think it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Easter in our hearts everyday, so for me today is just as much Easter as it was on Easter Sunday, so it is not belated Easter wishes after all.

As to the question: “If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?”

First of all, I would like to cross the bridge only after I have reached it, so for me the question is premature at this stage. For the following reasons I have no reason to consider that the possibility of finding the remains of Jesus exist:

1. One cannot simultaneously claim that Jesus Christ was an exemplary moral teacher (for all non-Christians are willing to admit at least that much about Jesus) who walked his talk and at the same time imply that He was a liar when He claimed to be the Messiah, and His many references to the Jewish prophesies which His life fulfilled, and the prediction of his death and Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to lie about who He was? He was after all aware of His coming fate, namely death on the cross, for His claim of being Messiah. He had only a band of simple men as His followers. If He was an ordinary man there was no way for Him to have known that in centuries to come Christianity would help shape a powerful civilisation. Jesus lived among the poor and outcastes of his society like a poor man. In other words, Jesus stood to gain nothing in a materialistic worldly sense at all. Jesus did not offer His disciples carnal pleasures and worldly wealth for following Him. He offered them just the opposite. Jesus wanted His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him, be prepared to be persecuted and die if need be, and to concentrate on gathering and storing up spiritual wealth, rather than amass worldly wealth and measure their success in terms of access to unlimited carnal pleasures. Considering all that, why did Jesus have to lie - to seek cheap popularity among the poor social outcastes He chose to associate with? Weren’t His miracles proof enough that He was no ordinary man? How could He as an ordinary human being have predicted His mode of death and Resurrection? Why would He invite death by crucifixion by claiming to be the Messiah?

2. The crucifixion of Jesus was a highly controversial issue in His time. It must be remembered that Pontius Pilate was hard pressed to find a loophole in Roman law to justify meting out the worst possible punishment to an innocent man. Even the worst of men try to build at least a false case before they do something they know to be wrong. And yet Pilate did no more than wash his hands off the guilt, making it a point to emphasise that he was merely giving in to the wishes of the Jewish people themselves (who claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy according to their Scripture, which demanded the ultimate punishment which they could not mete out themselves), thus covering his back and appeasing his guilt in one stroke, for there was nothing to make a false case about. Considering the seriousness of the claim of Jesus and the consequences He had to face as a result of it, the credibility of the religious Jewish and secular Roman authorities were at stake. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have done everything in their power to discredit the claims of Jesus and His followers. We know from the Bible that the Roman authorities took extra care to guard the tomb of Jesus to prevent any theft of the corpse. In other words, in the best interests of both the Jewish and Roman authorities they would have gladly produced the bodily remains of Jesus, especially after the disciples began to circulate reports that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead. The logical question is: Why didn’t they produce the evidence of the bodily remains of Jesus? The simple logical answer is: They couldn’t!

3. During the days of His ministry before crucifixion, Jesus performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. A Hindu sage and yogi would have no difficulty in believing that Jesus could have performed miracles, because miracles are wrought by those who have acquired the powers of Siddhi. (Jesus was after all accused by the Jews of performing miracles with the power of the Devil, which proves that miracles in themselves need not have a divine origin and need not create good fruits.) But raising a man from the dead is a unique power that is beyond the power of a human being even with psychic powers, and hence the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is what marks the power of Jesus different from all those who have acquired psychic powers through spiritual practice. Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, one with the Father, through whom all things were made. (Refer John’s Gospel)

4. The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead. The classic example is that of Apostle Thomas. He is known as Doubting Thomas, but I refer to him as Thomas, the Scientific Apostle. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it.” (John 20:25) And like a true scientist Thomas was willing to believe, once he was shown the proof (unlike many who say they will not believe no matter what anyone says and they refer to their attitude as that of a scientific rational mind). Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my GOD.” (John 20:27,28) The Bible account describes Jesus as having had a physical dimension which could eat and drink with His disciples, but His risen body was spiritual at the same time because He could walk through closed doors and disappear suddenly, and at times appeared in a form that wasn’t immediately recognisable.

5. It is important to recall that three wise men from the East came to worship Jesus when He was born. It was the confirmation of a universal awareness that God was going to reveal Himself in a unique way. The Bhagavad Gita which was completed around that time had already developed the theme of a personal God. The Jewish Prophets after all had prophesied the coming of the Messiah for centuries. Tradition has it that Apostle Thomas, (the Scientific Apostle in my definition), came to Kerala, India in 52 AD to evangelise to the small Jewish community that lived there at the time, and ended up converting many high caste Hindus, including rigid, ultra-orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins (like my ancestors), who practised the oldest Vedic religion. Without a powerfully convincing message it was highly unlikely that Apostle Thomas could have persuaded a Nambudiri Brahmin to accept Christianity and give up the privileges of belonging to an exclusive and powerful Hindu community, considering immediate ex-communication was the rule, with loss of means to earn a living in ways open only to the Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin: e.g. By practising Ayurveda taught only as a family profession, offering priestly services which brought very high income, being advisors to rulers or being priestly lords themselves, or serving the Nambudiri community in various ways. I have been asked on what grounds I believe that Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD and converted among others, my Hindu ancestors when there is no historical proof of it. In India many traditions are orally transmitted without being recorded historically. Hence I have every reason to believe that a whole state does not invent a tradition and pass it on faithfully for centuries without a trace of truth to it, considering the birthplace of Jesus was far away and the account of His life and death and role as Messiah could not have been invented in Kerala. I await proof that traditions cannot exist based on historical facts and such traditions have no validity if the events do not find a mention in history textbooks stemming from that period, especially since history writing was not a part of Indian culture at the time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church

Until such time that the mortal remains of Jesus Christ is unearthed/found and it is proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt, with DNA verification, that it is indeed the bodily remains of Jesus, I will continue to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and base my Christian faith on it. I see no reason whatsoever to raise the question now, as to whether it would affect my faith in Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God is risen! Alleluia!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Well said! Indeed, it is not a resucitation of a dead man but something radically new. His body bears the scars of his death even though, postmortem, he is capable of walking through walls and locked doors. There is such wealth in this topic and it invites rich speculation and charitable conversation. What a pity that this is lacking from most of the entries on this site!

Father Reese, you are missed terribly at AMERICA.

Since Father Reese quotes Teilhard de Chardin, it is fair to note that his writings were repeatedly condemned by the Vatican, and that in the 1950s he was given the choice between house arrest in France or exile in the United States (he chose the latter). Catholics who were influenced by de Chardin were deprived of their teaching posts and relocated far away from one another.

After his death, in 1962, the Holy Office denounced his works: "The above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine... For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers." That continues to be official policy, as clarified as recently as 1981.

It's a pity.

Always apparently doing something wrong... it's just wrong.

*1 of my 2 CHERUBS/CHERIBS.. you know.. angels with wings - whatever rank, they were mine under me. my two main ones. one didn't like being around humans so he went off & i guess reported me to Christ, as if we'd done somethign wrong.

QUOTE ANONYMOUS: TO MARC HALO: The bible does say that Christ’s body returned to life - Acts 2:31-32 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[a] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

RESPONSE: well, then if his body didn't see decay, it should be "floating around somewhere" lol
Wherever that is... lol

He probably has the same kind of body i did before He unkindly & incorrectly judged me after when 'i' ruled my particular city after my/our/demonic Fall.
but i guess you didnt know about that.
Such a proper Judge that fellow is.
I want my supernatural body back. Stupid Jesus. He took SOMEBODY ELSE's words on what was happening - 1 of my 2 chrubs under me, who was with me in my city back after the Fall. So i had to 'Fall' further - to my present body that's really rather average & can't fly.
Why people worship Him as good/fair Judgement is still beyond me.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/18/news/evolution.php

From the International Herald Tribune

Vatican gives a nod to evolution
By Ian Fisher The New York Times

THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006

ROME: Although not presented as an official church position, the Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the decision by a judge in Pennsylvania last month that the concept of intelligent design could not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

But the article, in the Vatican's most visible publication, seemed notable, given the strength of the comments on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another one," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

etc.

I don't think the church has officially accepted or rejected evolution. It takes science for what it is, a method that probes that dimension of reality that we can either perceive, detect or measure, and through experimentation attempts to ascertain what it is. Science has given us a partial, but contextually verifiable picture of the world. Seeing the truth of that on the one hand, and the truth of faith on the other, Teilhard sought to reconcile both.

The result was a series of intuitions, perhaps even prophecies (e.g. predicted the internet decades before the pentagon) that he orchestrated into a Christ centered cosmovision without parallels either in Christian thought or in science.

Borrowing from science, evolution, it allows creativity in expression as the resurrection is discussed. Those who have been critical of Rev. Reese in slicing and dicing his words regarding the literal transformation of Christ's body--whether it was a mutated higher form DNA'd physical-structure or if it represented a different type of spiritual matter--have missed his main point: Whatever physical state Christ's body became after the resurrection, the point is that IF he ascended to heaven as witnesses described in the Gospels, then Christ's body is probably still in that form today--he's just physically some place else where we don't literally see him.

Furthermore, if Christ's existence continues in that form then what is the meaning of the resurrection for us mortals left behind to inhabit this earth? Obviously, we don't have to fear death which is one of the basic emotions that is experienced through our lives over and over again. Second, the more potent words expressed by Rev. Reese are: "love over death." Yes, starting today we can all stop worrying about death. We can all manifest out belief in HIM by loving someone TODAY. The glorious message is that HE lives so we should live likewise--and always be ready for the HIS second coming. And when he returns, we will see him with that same glorified body of flesh and bones. I doubt that when the second coming occurs that anyone will approach HIM and ask for a DNA sample to answer the non-spiritual scientific question associated with evolution.

Fr. Thomas Reese is a dissident Catholic priest. Fired from his job at America Magazine for his lack of fidelity to the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. Tielhard de Chardin is a banned Theologian and has been cesured by two Popes.
So anything that comes from the mouth of Fr. Reese is questionable.

Thank you, Fr. Reese, for a very interesting and enlightening piece. I am Christian, and Catholic, and had always known the resurrection (which I do believe consisted of both physical as well as spiritual manifestation) as the start of something revolutionary and new. However, I had never really thought of it as "evolutionary."

I have read some Teilhard de Chardin, and see merit in the concept of a continual growth towards understanding of God -- that God brings us along as we are ready -- much like a good teacher will bring the student to full knowledges of a subject matter in steps rather than all at once. Just as we must learn to add before we can grasp multiplication, and must learn to multiply before we move to algebra, so must we move from polytheism to monotheism to the truth of the resurrection to whatever God has next for us in our collective journey towards full communion with Him. Clearly there is much yet to be revealed. That is one reason why I continue with such joy and faith in the Catholic Church and refuse to give heed to those who would say that the full Word of God has already been revealed, and that our journey in faith reached an end 2000 years ago. Still, the concept of "evolution", not "revolution" (to blatantly put your words into my understanding), clarifies and solidifies something that I guess has long been nebulous for me.

And thank you Mr. Alonzo for a very nice post re: Teilhard de Chardin. Well done.

How can anyone compare resurrection of Christ to gene mutation in evolution ? I have not heard of gene mutation or evolution in a single organism, usually it is the entire species and it takes millions of years. What gene was he talking about anyway that would revive just one dead man ?

O.K., he is not a scientist. But then why evoke gene mutation and evolution ?

Perhaps no one can contradict the Pope !

Who is this troll who goes by the name Jacob Jozevz - his rumblings are posted for almost every article in Washington Post that allows readers to comment.

Jozevz or what ever your real name is, what you are doing is NOT FUNNY.

SHOCKED has a problem with evolutionary theory being used by those who eschew it. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church and mainstream, non-fundamentalist Protestant churches embrace the scientific theory of evolution. Where the church draws the line is at scientists extending evolutionary theory into the areas beyond the realm of scientific proof, into morality and ethics, for example. However, theologians look to advances in science to inform and challenge their understanding of God and His relationship to His creation. Benedict's Easter teaching is a fine example. For a rather thrilling exploration of evolution and God, look up “Darwin, Design and the Promise of Nature” a Boyle Lecture by John F. Haught who is Thomas Healey Distinguished Professor of Theology at Georgetown University. His description of epochal time, using shelves and books of a library as metaphor, is the most approachable I have encountered.

TO MARC HALO: The bible does say that Christ’s body returned to life - Acts 2:31-32 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ,[a] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

John 20:9For as yet (B)they did not understand the Scripture, (C)that He must rise again from the dead.

Scripture tells us that Jesus died, and clearly he rose from the dead and his body was saved from decay from the grave.

You have much to learn…

I have a problem with the ideas and language of evolutionary theory being used by those who eschew its tentants. Likewise to using regligious text/theory to justify the theory of evolution. Even if they are tangentially related, it confuses and problematically melds the two in a modern global society intent on language and ideas based in absolutes.

QUOTE REV THOMAS J. REESE:
"Christ’s Resurrection is something more than simply the miracle of a corpse returning to life."

The Bible doesn't even SAY that Christ's *CORPSE* returned to life.
Some great false techer you've turned out to be.
Sorry if I've just given away your secret agenda. Maybe your team of demon people will just have to alter that one too from The Holy Bible.
(Which still won't work, as much as us demons would like it to be so, there will ALWAYS be stupid annoying K.J.V.=carrying Christians who know the truth.. so BACK TO THE OLDSCHOOL, i say!!

Wellllll, He (Jesus) *may* have used his corpse in his supernatural return, but there are many other options one can't deiscredit:
One of them being that Christ didn't even raise from the dead, and the resurected Christ was really Simon Magus & his magic tricks
OR
Christ's physical body was left in his tomb, while his spiritual being just had marks like the stake marks through his actual physical body..

Love, Marc Halo
6 6 6

Fixing up your complete or forgetful arrogance.

Ba'al said: "And, of course, there is the fact that the Gospels predicted that Jesus would return within the lifetimes of his eyewitnesses, or those of his apostles. Just sayin' "

Incorrect: He said they were living in the last days...which could and do extend to now.

He also said they would see him in His glory, which Peter, James, and John did at the transfiguration. There's no statement that he would return in the disciples generation.

E.FAVORITE tells us:

Ah - notice how Fr Reese never actually addresses bodily resurrection. What he says can mean whatever you want it to mean and he never has to take a stand. Most people reading it may assume he believes in bodily resurrection -

ANN O. replies: I think there is a serious semantic problem here.

Look again at what Fr. Reese has said. It is clear that Jesus'"body" does not refer to an ordinary body. Scripture makes that very clear. Yes, it was similar to other "bodies" -- the different accounts say that it could be seen by many people at the same time, it had shape, color,was solid, moved,had conversations, etc. But it was also very different -- it could do things ordinary bodies could not -- e.g., it could even walk through wall.

So what does "body" mean when speaking of the risen Christ? It's meaning is only analogous to its ordinary meaning. "Jesus' body" obviously means something quite different from "body" in other contexts (it can walk through walls), but it also refers to something quite similar (3-d, shaped, colored, etc.).

Given the somewhat different meanings, there is no simple "yes" or "no" answer because the meanings are somewhat different, somewhat the same.

Complexity, complexity.

Ann O.

E Favorite:

Responding to your comment..."Ah - notice how Fr Reese never actually addresses bodily resurrection."

I think his first sentence does address the bodily resurrection. He just moves beyond it to further teaching on it's meaning (which most of it I disagree with).

It is interesting that Teilhard de Chardin died on the date the Resurrection is comemorated, that is, on Easter Sunday.

For Teilhard the entire cosmos is driven by the law of complexity-consciousness. Entities (protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc.) are driven by a radial energy that pushes outwards and a tangential energy that organizes or brings them together in ever more complex levels. He said to ´'unite is to create'. Teilhard proposed and believed that as complexity increases, so does interiority, or consciousness.

Acordingly, as sucessive spheres of the earth (and the cosmos) develop from antecedent ones, they do not only manifest a more complex organiuzation of the earth, but also a more conscious one.

Teilhard understood that the various geological layers of the earth evolved into the first layer of organic matter, the first cell of life (biogenesis/biosphere), the first thoughts (noogenesis/noosphere).

Teilhard argued that animals emerged as the first constituents of the noosphere (thinking sphere) that enveloped the earth. The most evolved (complexly-conscious) of these thinking animals, human beings, not only thought, but because of the increased interiority that results from complexity consciousness, knew that they thought: they reflected. The 'complexity-consciuoussness' drive that had been pushing outwards shifted and turned inwards. Humans became the first earthling entities to reflect on who they were.

This new quality of consciuousness resulted in the creation of a new sphere that surrounds the earth: the theosphere, the encounter of humans with God.

The birth and resurrection of Christ are central to his understanding of the (divinely inspired) evolutionary process that ultimately leads to the formation of the theosphere.

For Teilhard, the earth, and indeed the entire cosmos, is driven by the drive of complexity-consciousness towards the definitive convergence in the resurrected Jesus Christ, the ultimate source (alpha) and end (omega) of all that exists.

The Big Bang for Teilhard was thus not only a ball of hot gases, but interiorly, Christ's love. Thus the cosmos was an act of love. Later in his thought, he writes of potential forms that may or may not be brought into existence. If and when they are, they begin an evolutionary ascent, frought with sin and statistical error, that leads to theosphere, the encounter with God.

While the entities or forms, created by Christ's love, at the beginning of ther cosmos push upward, the resurrected Christ pulls them with his love, towards the definitve encounter with Him, and through Him with the Father.

In quoting Teilhard, Reverend Reese is perhaps pointing in his direction, and Benedict XVI's, for a fuller picture of all that Christ's resurrection may mean. In no way, is he denying a physical resurrection, any more than Teilhard did. Indeed, Teilhard, believed that matter was sacred, was being divinized, and that Christ's love was the force divinizing it.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the first event, the first moment in the divine life of the emerging theosphere. All humanity and all matter is in the process of evolving and being transformed, drawn, and divinized into the theosphere through the attraction exerted by Christ's presence and love.

Ah - notice how Fr Reese never actually addresses bodily resurrection. What he says can mean whatever you want it to mean and he never has to take a stand. Most people reading it may assume he believes in bodily resurrection - after all, he's a priest, and he says it's something "more,” something "different" that has quite an "impact." But, note carefully - he never says the resurrection is a physiological fact. That's because, in my opinion, he doesn't think it is -- he's simply using his lifetime experience of speaking in code to obfuscate, keep the faithful happy and keep his standing in the Church intact.

I hope, Father, that you can break free of this soon and use your considerable communication skills to elucidate instead.

If I’ve misread you, please come on and tell us that you unequivocally believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. And no weasel words, please, and no fingers crossed behind your back.

I find it amazing that Christians attach much more meaning to the death of Jesus than to his life. However, that is the theological corner in which they have painted themselves.

As for Jesus' "resurrection" ushering in a new life for our species, nothing in history suggests that enough has changed to identify this magic evolutionary leap that the Pope talks about. It seems clear enough that what permeates the world now is pretty much the same thing that permeated it before -- Inquisitions, pogroms, and Holy Wars notwithstanding.

And, of course, there is the fact that the Gospels predicted that Jesus would return within the lifetimes of his eyewitnesses, or those of his apostles. Just sayin'

Norrie,

Get lost or get a life. Like you have anything to teach this very intellectual and spiritual man!

Sorry, Father Reese, but it just ain't so.

Too bad - or perhaps not. Buddhism's ethical system is superior to Christiany's, and its cosmology is almost certainly the truer of the two.

If you switched to B, you might be happier.

"The more we love, the more we are united to the cosmic Christ because that is what the resurrection is all about: the victory of love over death. The more we love, the more we open ourselves to the power of the Spirit."

Why would that aspect of love require an actual resurrection or actual Spirit? Why not teach the Resurrection as an allegory to teach about the power of love? Other religious throughout history have had resurrection stories, which suggest that the stories satisfy some human need.