Author Topic: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus  (Read 213 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Niko92

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 115
Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« on: April 04, 2019, 10:52:24 PM »
Here is the critique:
Mark, however, mentions only the open and empty tomb and the presence of the angel, while the apparition of the visible body of Christ has been reported by a later and in an obvious addendum.

The first report about the resurrected Christ is made by Mary Magdalene, from whom Christ had driven out seven devils.

This annotation has a peculiarly cursory character (cf. in particular Mark 1 1 : 19), as if somebody had realized that Mark’s report was altogether too meagre and that the usual things told about Christ’s death ought to be added for the sake of completeness.

The earliest source about the Resurrection is St. Paul, and he is no eyewitness, but he strongly emphasizes the absolute and vital importance of resurrection as well as the authenticity of the reports. (Cf. I Cor. 15 : 14IT and 15:5^”.)

He mentions Cephas (Peter) as the first witness, then the twelve, then the five hundred, then James, then the apostles, and finally himself.

This is interesting, since his experience was quite clearly an understandable vision, while the later reports insist upon the material concreteness of Christ’s body (particularly Luke 24 : 42 and John 20 : 24fT.).

The evangelical testimonies agree with each other only about the emptiness of the tomb, but not at all about the chronology of the eyewitnesses.

There the tradition becomes utterly unreliable.

If one adds the story about the end of Judas, who must have been a very interesting object to the hatred of the Christians, our doubts of the Resurrection story are intensified: there are two absolutely different versions of the way of his death.

The fact of the Resurrection is historically doubtful. If we extend the beneficium dubii to those contradictory statements we could consider the possibility of an individual as well as collective vision (less likely of a materialization)
.
The conclusion drawn by the ancient Christians—since Christ has risen from the dead so shall we rise in a new and incorruptible body—is of course just what St. Paul has feared most, viz., invalid and as vain as the expectation of the immediate parousia, which has come to naught.

As the many shocking miracle-stories in the Gospels show, spiritual reality could not be demonstrated to the uneducated and rather primitive population in any other way but by crude and tangible “miracles” or stories of such kind.

Concretism was unavoidable with all its grotesque implications—for example, the believers in Christ were by the grace of God to be equipped with a glorified body at their resurrection, and the unbelievers and unredeemed sinners were too, so that they could be plagued in hell or purgatory for any length of time.

An incorruptible body was necessary for the latter performance, otherwise damnation would have come to an end in no time.

Under those conditions, resurrection as a historical and concrete fact cannot be maintained, whereas the vanishing of the corpse could be a real fact.

I have tried to figure it all out from what he said but I'm not well versed enough to make sense of his argument.
Just wanted to see if anyone here could shed some light on it for me please 😊

Offline isxodnik

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 364
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROC
Re: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« Reply #1 on: April 04, 2019, 11:31:22 PM »
It's not a good idea - go to a scientist, when you try to understand faith.
If you want , forget it like a bad dream. Faith is God's gift only.
Оскверняются путие eго на всяко время, отъемлются судьбы Твоя от лица eго, всеми враги своими обладает. (Psalm 9:26)

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« Reply #2 on: April 04, 2019, 11:48:18 PM »
It makes little sense to me either.

Of course, the whole "Paul was a Gnostic" thing has never made much sense to me anyway. It seems to require a weird stretch interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 and other passages.

Yes, the Gospels have some inconsistencies and weird omissions relative to one another, but I'm not convinced that these can't be harmonized well enough. Though even if they can't, I'm not sure it really matters when it comes to small details. They all agree on the fact that Christ is Risen.

The spiel about physical bodies sounds like nothing but some kind of weird Gnostic snobbery. Bodies are a good thing. Even the damned get them back because we're incomplete as beings without them.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 11:48:43 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,302
  • Ευλογημένη Σαρακοστή
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2019, 11:52:26 PM »
If the Gospels agreed too closely, there would be suspicion that one copies from the other.  What we have is different writers picking out different things about the resurrection.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 11:52:37 PM by Luke »

Online Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,302
  • Ευλογημένη Σαρακοστή
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2019, 11:52:49 PM »
If the Gospels agreed too closely, there would be suspicion that one copied from the other.  What we have is different writers picking out different things about the resurrection.  So yes, the Gospels are not going to have the exact wording or exact order.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 11:53:52 PM by Luke »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2019, 12:02:33 AM »
Yeah, the argument is that it's like different witnesses after a car wreck noticing different things.

As with most Resurrectional apologetics, there's quite a few "moving parts" that I have a hard time keeping track of, but it seems to check out.

Of course, in the absence of any other sources on the life of Christ, skeptics are pretty much arguing from silence anyway. Even if the accounts are hopelessly contradictory, there's no reason to think that there isn't a core there that at least roughly corresponds to the kerygma (there may not be as much reason to say that there is either, but I tend to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the basic truth of Christianity).
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Online WPM

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,341
  • Faith: Universal Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: United States
Re: Jungs critique of the bodily resurrection of Jesus
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2019, 07:37:31 AM »
Thy Glorious Resurrection O' Christ