Christianity without a Resurrected Christ

[3DOP]

I asked calm about the possibility of the Book of Mormon being ahistorical in a different thread. I wondered if it could be acceptable as what I called "inspired fiction". As a Catholic, I would suggest there is latitude as to historicity in canonical texts while maintaining that the entire canon as well as the "pious fiction" is inspired Scripture. I gave the example of Jonah. It would be miraculous, and I do not say it wasn't miraculous. But I do say it doesn't have to be a miracle story to have great value, and belong in the Catholic Bible. When calm asks if I "feel that way about the resurrection" I understand her to be referring back to my comment about the book of Jonah. I would add that Jesus did refer to Jonah in connection with His resurrection. It could be argued that if Jonah is ahistorical, but teaches a good message, so likewise it could be that way with Jesus.  

calm 

Do you feel that way about the resurrection? That it would still have sufficient value to remain Christian even if there was no resurrected Christ, but perhaps a divine being who taught humans valuable lessons using such inspired stories?  About not just the stories of Christ’s life where he taught and healed, but that he was God who became flesh, lived and died and rose of Christ again?  That such would still have great value as inspired pious fiction?

If so, what is there for you in Catholic belief that must be relatively close to how it’s taught in order to have not just moral value (teaching principles), but salvation for those who participate in it?  That must be true as taught in order for you to remain Catholic?

I hope this doesn’t come across as challenging or disrespecting your faith, you just made me curious about how you look at your faith in this way given what you said.

Rory

Challenging is good, cal. In over a quarter of a century of interaction in various places, I have never noted that you have ever been disrespectful to anyone, and certainly not me. (I think you scolded me once. I can't remember what it was about. Hopefully I have changed my ways!)

-----

To anyone interested...feel free to share your ideas, and of course I intend to be adding mine, but not yet.

 

[MrShorty]

Several years ago as I was contemplating how much of scripture might be "pious fiction," I recall asking myself the question from the opposite end -- How much of scripture must be historical for my faith to continue. As I contemplated that question, I concluded that there had to be some kernel of historic truth to the accounts of Christ's resurrection. Which isn't to say that I need all of the details provided by the Evangelists in their gospels to be historically true. I think I can be fine if much of the passion narrative is fictional adaptation of the actual events to make different theological points, but, in some fashion, Christ must have died and then been resurrected to immortality. I can still be flexible in the details, but there must be something historically true there.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I asked calm about the possibility of the Book of Mormon being ahistorical in a different thread. I wondered if it could be acceptable as what I called "inspired fiction".
...
It could be argued that if Jonah is ahistorical, but teaches a good message, so likewise it could be that way with Jesus.

I commented on this previously here I 

Quote

A popular refrain from the "Inspired Fiction" folks is that The Book of Mormon has value even if it is entirely fictional, just like the parables of Jesus need not be literally historical in order to have value.  However, I disagree with this comparison.   Parables have value irrespective of their historicity, I agree with that. However, Jesus Christ being the Son of God and Savior of the world only has value because of the historicity tied up with that declaration. Historicity matters when we consider various scriptural passages, such as this one: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Absent historicity, this passage has no salvific meaning or value. Without historicity, Jesus would be just another admirable fictional character, like Atticus Finch, or Samwise Gamgee, or Captain America. Jesus would be about as valuable to me as an imaginary life preserver would be to a drowning man.

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon" (published in the above volume), Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?"  He goes on (emphasis added):

Quote

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, pp. 137-138.)

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

I've also previously quoted Elder Oaks (same link) (emphasis added) :

Quote

"There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

I don't think we (that is, members of the Church) can say, regarding Jesus Christ, that quotations of Him in the Bible merely contain "high-minded sentiments and beautiful turns of phrase," and that we can enjoy such things while also rejecting His claims to be the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind.  I have yet to see the Inspired Fiction folks (that is, those who are members of the Church) address this issue, which I believe is fatal to their proposal.  If The Book of Mormon can be rejected for what it claims to be, and instead construed as fiction, then so can Jesus' claims of being the Son of God and our Savior.

The value of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which, for me, includes the Book of Mormon) is, for me, inextricably linked with its realness and authenticity, with what it claims to be.

There are, of course, portions of the scriptures which are figurative, or which otherwise do not need to have historicity.  But Jesus Christ really needs to have been an actual person and the actual Son of God.  And the Book of Mormon really needs to be what it claims to be.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Do you feel that way about the resurrection? That it would still have sufficient value to remain Christian even if there was no resurrected Christ, but perhaps a divine being who taught humans valuable lessons using such inspired stories?  

A fictional Jesus puts Him on par with other fictional heroes.  Admirable, but not needed, not the source of salvation.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

About not just the stories of Christ’s life where he taught and healed, but that he was God who became flesh, lived and died and rose of Christ again?  That such would still have great value as inspired pious fiction?

Some value, yes (again, like Gandalf or Atticus Finch or Captain America), but not salvific value.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

Never mind. Wrong thread. My post was not responsive to the actual topic.  

My bad.  Posting here is apparently NOT like riding a bicycle.  

 

Edited April 7 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

Without the resurrection Jesus (and possibly John the Baptist too) was just one more failed Jewish messiah. There are quite a few of them.

Without the Book of Mormon being historical it is a lot like Kaballah. The Sefer Zohar that really got Kaballah started was purported to be a translation of an ancient text but was definitely not. Even some who knew that it was not a translated ancient text still accepted it as important. The Book of Mormon probably wouldn’t survive that treatment though.

It would be like Lord of the Rings which is (with tongue firmly in cheek) purported to be a translation of ancient documents Tolkien found. Except the Book of Mormon is nowhere near as good a story.

[manol]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

To anyone interested...feel free to share your ideas [on Christianity without a resurrected Christ]...

Well imo, there's believing something about Christ, such as, that he was resurrected; and then there's believing Christ, which would be believing his actual teachings (including the more radical ones) and aligning one's life with them to the best of one's ability. 

Imo there is utility in both, and it's by no means either/or, but - speaking only for myself here - I prioritize believing and aligning myself to the teachings of Christ moreso than having the correct set of beliefs about Christ.  

 

Edited April 7 by manol

[manol]

Ooops double post; was trying to edit.  My beliefs about how to edit obviously are not yet correct. 

Or maybe the spirit is willing but the mind is weak. 

Edited April 7 by manol

[bluebell]

I don’t think there is Christianity without the resurrected Christ. 

[3DOP]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think there is Christianity without the resurrected Christ. 

There are many reasons why I agree. Instead of the resurrected Christ entering a house on Easter evening through closed doors where the disciples had huddled in fear, no one would have come. Here is John's recollection about what Jesus said:

"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he said this he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit." 

---John 20:21, 22

Without this experience, I see the disciples' fearfulness subsiding fairly quickly. They would have lacked a sense of mission, of being sent by God to preach to the world. In seven weeks, instead of praying together for the Advocate to come ten days after seeing Jesus Ascension (which would not have happened either), for the coming of the Holy Spirit, they probably would have already begun to go their separate ways. They could not have any guilt about failure to carry a message of Christ's resurrection into the world. I think it would be normal to feel a sense of relief perhaps. They certainly shared some extraordinary years. Maybe they would have had a "class reunion" every so often?

[Tony uk]

For Christianity to exist, the resurrection of Christ was needed. Jesus commissioning the Apostles to make disciples of all nations. Along with the Holy Spirit at pentacost, gave the Apostles belief, and strength of character to preach of Christ.

[3DOP]

14 hours ago, manol said:

Well imo, there's believing something about Christ, such as, that he was resurrected; and then there's believing Christ, which would be believing his actual teachings (including the more radical ones) and aligning one's life with them to the best of one's ability. 

Imo there is utility in both, and it's by no means either/or, but - speaking only for myself here - I prioritize believing and aligning myself to the teachings of Christ moreso than having the correct set of beliefs about Christ.  

 

You allow for the utility, or necessity (?), of belief in both, as do I. Without beliefs about Christ, we would be experiencing a never ending Lent. We need triumph over death and the grave. We need rejoicing after sorrow. We need the hope of our own resurrections tomorrow in heaven. Without Christ's teaching we have no sense of moral elevation here and now, a change in our universe when we hear Him say, "You have heard it said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you to love your enemy." Thanks for that reminder.

But what devout young person could be motivated to learning another language and giving up two years of their early 20's to go to a foreign land hoping they will be able to find someone willing to be baptized in the name of this dead man?

Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth post-resurrection. I don't see the Roman authorities perceiving any threat to the Empire by the introduction of a cult directed to an unresurrected Jewish carpenter. Much less do I see a church being built on the foundation of Apostles and martyrs willing to die for such a cause. 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

There are many reasons why I agree. Instead of the resurrected Christ entering a house on Easter evening through closed doors where the disciples had huddled in fear, no one would have come. Here is John's recollection about what Jesus said:

"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he said this he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit." 

---John 20:21, 22

Without this experience, I see the disciples' fearfulness subsiding fairly quickly. They would have lacked a sense of mission, of being sent by God to preach to the world. In seven weeks, instead of praying together for the Advocate to come ten days after seeing Jesus Ascension (which would not have happened either), for the coming of the Holy Spirit, they probably would have already begun to go their separate ways. They could not have any guilt about failure to carry a message of Christ's resurrection into the world. I think it would be normal to feel a sense of relief perhaps. They certainly shared some extraordinary years. Maybe they would have had a "class reunion" every so often?

All true.  And of course, there would have been no message for them to carry to anyone and no reason to.  Jesus would have been a good teacher and an exemplary man but nothing more to them.  Another rabbi maybe to remember maybe.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

You allow for the utility, or necessity (?), of belief in both, as do I. Without beliefs about Christ, we would be experiencing a never ending Lent. We need triumph over death and the grave. We need rejoicing after sorrow. We need the hope of our own resurrections tomorrow in heaven. Without Christ's teaching we have no sense of moral elevation here and now, a change in our universe when we hear Him say, "You have heard it said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say to you to love your enemy." Thanks for that reminder.

But what devout young person could be motivated to learning another language and giving up two years of their early 20's to go to a foreign land hoping they will be able to find someone willing to be baptized in the name of this dead man?

Jesus claimed to have all authority in heaven and on earth post-resurrection. I don't see the Roman authorities perceiving any threat to the Empire by the introduction of a cult directed to an unresurrected Jewish carpenter. Much less do I see a church being built on the foundation of Apostles and martyrs willing to die for such a cause. 

Agreed.

It can't just be Friday.  We need Sunday.

[3DOP]

14 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

For Christianity to exist, the resurrection of Christ was needed. Jesus commissioning the Apostles to make disciples of all nations. Along with the Holy Spirit at pentacost, gave the Apostles belief, and strength of character to preach of Christ.

Yes indeed Tony. I mention those ideas here in my post to bluebell! Heh. I still haven't answered calm's question which I am saving for last. But isn't it great that we all seem to agree so far? Doesn't it make us want to go to church together? It does me! Alas though, my post to calm will undo the practicality of my sentimental vision of unity. For now. May we never despair of that desire, for which you prayed, Lord. (Jn. 17:11)

[Tony uk]

I would like to add one further point, and I am sure 3DOP can expand further. The early Christians first met on the first day of the week, Sunday, for the breaking of bread. As recognition of Sunday being the day of the resurrection. These early Christians, would have been meeting in the time period, not long after the resurrection. So they would, I expect, have first hand understanding of the matter.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Yes indeed Tony. I mention those ideas here in my post to bluebell! Heh. I still haven't answered calm's question which I am saving for last. But isn't it great that we all seem to agree so far? Doesn't it make us want to go to church together? It does me! Alas though, my post to calm will undo the practicality of my sentimental vision of unity. For now. May we never despair of that desire, for which you prayed, Lord. (Jn. 17:11)

Tony is also Catholic I believe. 😊

[Pyreaux]

I barely recall Jordan Peterson’s "True-Myth" perspective, heavily influenced by Carl Jung, suggests that a story is "true" if it accurately models the human condition and provides a functional map for navigating the world. If a fiction describes the "meta-patterns" of human behavior (like the hero’s journey or the sacrifice of the ego), it is "truer than true."

If acting as if the story is true results in a more meaningful, productive, and ethical life, then the story possesses "truth" in a pragmatic sense, regardless of whether the physical atoms in the story ever moved in that specific way.

My only allowance for such ideas is that Christian narratives didn't emerge from a vacuum, but were literary a reemergence of the Ancient Near Eastern Royal Cult. In the Royal Cults, like in Babylon and Egypt, the King was not just a political ruler; he became God on earth. During their autumn kingmaking festivals, the King was often ritually humiliated, stripped of his regalia and forced to "descend" into a symbolic death or chaos. He would then be "raised up" and re-enthroned, he had atoned for the land to ensure the fertility of the land and rain and the stability of the state for another year.

If you look at the Passion, it mirrors the schema of royal ritual almost perfectly. The Gospel isn't "news" in the modern sense; it's maybe the final, universalized performance of that old Royal Drama. In the old Royal Cult, only the King died and rose. Christianity’s "innovation" was to take that royal drama and apply it to everyone. Every person must die daily, "slay" their old, tyrannical self (the King who has become rigid) and be "resurrected" as a new, more integrated self. Everyone can receive the royal priesthood, we can follow Jesus through the veil and draw near unto God.

There is a theory by scholars like Michael Goulder that the Gospels were structured to follow the Jewish liturgical calendar, effectively acting as "scripts" for communal worship. They aren't "lies"; they are theatrical scenes designed to evoke a specific psychological state in the audience.

The Gospel of Philip

In Gnostic thought, the physical world was often seen as a shadow or a mistake. Therefore, a "physical" resurrection after death was less important than a "spiritual" resurrection during life.

"Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die." - Gospel of Philip

It suggests the "Drama" was intended to be an initiatory experience. You "rise" (attain enlightenment/gnosis) during the ritual, which then allows you to face physical death without fear. Jesus could be an Archetypal Script, the New Testament a High Art version of ancient Royal Cult dramas. If this is a fictional account, it isn't "false". For a Gnostic, this account was "truer" because it captured the spiritual reality of their practice, even if it contradicted history.

Edited April 8 by Pyreaux

[Tony uk]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Tony is also Catholic I believe. 😊

Yes I am Bluebell. 😊

Although, I am prepared to learn and understand from other people. Especially the LDS.

[3DOP]

On 4/7/2026 at 11:21 AM, MrShorty said:

Several years ago as I was contemplating how much of scripture might be "pious fiction," I recall asking myself the question from the opposite end -- How much of scripture must be historical for my faith to continue. As I contemplated that question, I concluded that there had to be some kernel of historic truth to the accounts of Christ's resurrection. Which isn't to say that I need all of the details provided by the Evangelists in their gospels to be historically true. I think I can be fine if much of the passion narrative is fictional adaptation of the actual events to make different theological points, but, in some fashion, Christ must have died and then been resurrected to immortality. I can still be flexible in the details, but there must be something historically true there.

Hi Mr. Shorty. THAT is an excellent way to approach the question of possible "pious fiction".

I am bound as a Catholic to certain norms of belief about the Scriptures and you would probably have more wiggle room than me. The main new (to me) truth about the Scriptures which we have to assert as historically precise, historically hyperbolic, or pious fiction must be resolved by Catholics according to principles to which other Christians are not bound but which I find to be advantageous for explaining what we might consider to be "irregularities" in the Scripture by Christian standards. Some common irregularities are often cited by critics of Scripture and faith. They include vindictive Psalms and canticles, approval of slavery, and apparent instructions to leaders among the Patriarchs of Israel to wipe out entire populations with children, women, and sometimes even animals. Mr. Shorty, these have been "problems" for me of late, but never so much so as to make me able to plausibly deny the Resurrection of Christ. 

If you and others can follow a long passage from the Vatican II document on Divine Revelation called Dei Verbum, I will try to illustrate how it has helped me to be more confident that I can still insist on the sacredness and inspiration of the entire canon of Catholic Scriptures. There are 73 books, of which we share 66 with the LDS. The most important principle for me is found in a section about the Old Testament:

 

14. In carefully planning and preparing the salvation of the whole human race the God of infinite love, by a special dispensation, chose for Himself a people to whom He would entrust His promises. First He entered into a covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 15:18) and, through Moses, with the people of Israel (see Ex. 24:8). To this people which He had acquired for Himself, He so manifested Himself through words and deeds as the one true and living God that Israel came to know by experience the ways of God with men. Then too, when God Himself spoke to them through the mouth of the prophets, Israel daily gained a deeper and clearer understanding of His ways and made them more widely known among the nations (see Ps. 21:29; 95:1-3; Is. 2:1-5; Jer. 3:17). The plan of salvation foretold by the sacred authors, recounted and explained by them, is found as the true word of God in the books of the Old Testament: these books, therefore, written under divine inspiration, remain permanently valuable. "For all that was written for our instruction, so that by steadfastness and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4).

15. The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12). Now the books of the Old Testament, in accordance with the state of mankind before the time of salvation established by Christ, reveal to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men. These books, though they also contain some things which are incomplete and temporary, nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy. (1) These same books, then, give expression to a lively sense of God, contain a store of sublime teachings about God, sound wisdom about human life, and a wonderful treasury of prayers, and in them the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way. Christians should receive them with reverence. call

16. God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. (2) For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, (3) acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it.

---Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 18, 1965, paragraphs 14-16.

As I understand it, the divine pedagogy emphasizes how God in history leads mankind gradually to the fullness of revelation until we are privileged to know Him face to face in yet another era from the one we now enjoy. It is clear even from the New Testament that God permitted certain activities before which He once "winked at" (Acts 17:30). We only need to remember how Christ explained divorce as being allowed from the times of Moses, before it was a sacrament (according to the Catholic Church), because of "hardness of hearts" and that Jesus is returning us to the strict monogamy of Adam and Eve. I think we have to admit that polygamy, while not lauded, was tolerated during the pre-Christian period. The divine pedagogy is the reason why in a different post, I mentioned that passage in the Gospel where Jesus says that we have heard that we should love our neighbors and hate our enemies. But He (Christ) is bringing an updated calling to love and charity for all. Where in the Psalms one can sometimes read of curses directed towards true enemies, one hears Christ and St. Stephen the proto-martyr, to "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I cannot say I have resolved every "problem". But I am convinced that we have a key through recognizing a divine pedagogy for understanding why behaviors under the Old Law that we find questionable today, should not be cause for any faith crisis. These "problems" occurred during a period of relative ignorance, which God "winked at", according to the New Testament itself. Finally Mr. Shorty, this is why I recommend your approach to "pious fiction" and the Resurrection of Christ as the critically important question to resolve regarding literal salvation history. 

Of course, someone could object, God could have revealed everything to Moses all at once. That is true. I can think of reasons why it is fitting to teach mankind step by step in the way it has unfolded. But this is already a long post, and I have at least one more to make. I am content for God's wisdom to be fully illustrated at the Last Judgment.    

[3DOP]

29 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I barely recall Jordan Peterson’s "True-Myth" perspective, heavily influenced by Carl Jung, suggests that a story is "true" if it accurately models the human condition and provides a functional map for navigating the world. If a fiction describes the "meta-patterns" of human behavior (like the hero’s journey or the sacrifice of the ego), it is "truer than true."

If acting as if the story is true results in a more meaningful, productive, and ethical life, then the story possesses "truth" in a pragmatic sense, regardless of whether the physical atoms in the story ever moved in that specific way.

My only allowance for such ideas is that Christian narratives didn't emerge from a vacuum, but were literary a reemergence of the Ancient Near Eastern Royal Cult. In the Royal Cults, like in Babylon and Egypt, the King was not just a political ruler; he became God on earth. During their autumn kingmaking festivals, the King was often ritually humiliated, stripped of his regalia and forced to "descend" into a symbolic death or chaos. He would then be "raised up" and re-enthroned, he had atoned for the land to ensure the fertility of the land and rain and the stability of the state for another year.

If you look at the Passion, it mirrors the schema of royal ritual almost perfectly. The Gospel isn't "news" in the modern sense; it's maybe the final, universalized performance of that old Royal Drama. In the old Royal Cult, only the King died and rose. Christianity’s "innovation" was to take that royal drama and apply it to everyone. Every person must die daily, "slay" their old, tyrannical self (the King who has become rigid) and be "resurrected" as a new, more integrated self. Everyone can receive the royal priesthood, those who do follow Jesus through the veil and draw near unto God.

There is a theory by scholars like Michael Goulder that the Gospels were structured to follow the Jewish liturgical calendar, effectively acting as "scripts" for communal worship. They aren't "lies"; they are theatrical scenes designed to evoke a specific psychological state in the audience.

The Gospel of Philip

In Gnostic thought, the physical world was often seen as a shadow or a mistake. Therefore, a "physical" resurrection after death was less important than a "spiritual" resurrection during life.

"Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die." — Gospel of Philip

It suggests the "Drama" was intended to be an initiatory experience. You "rise" (attain enlightenment/gnosis) during the ritual, which then allows you to face physical death without fear. Jesus could be an Archetypal Script, the New Testament a High Art version of ancient Royal Cult dramas. If this is a fictional account, it isn't "false". For a Gnostic, this account was "truer" because it captured the spiritual reality of their practice, even if it contradicted history.

Hey Pyreaux. I had not heard of the "true myth"! It sounds like an appealing idea. Thanks for sharing. I am such a modern westerner. A myth is necessarily deceptive?

I have to be a wee bit hesitant with the Gospel of Philip and gnostic thought. My God likes matter. The physical world is no error. Catholics are not in favor of celibacy because the body is bad, or the marital bed is bad, but because they are good, and therefore a worthy sacrifice, but only for those who might be called to it. Fasting which you guys practice too, is the same. Physical food is good and necessary, but self denial in this area is a good sacrifice. Rom 12: 1, 2 tells us to offer our bodies (physical?), a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Catholics can't be dualistic about matter and spirit. Both are good.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

barely recall Jordan Peterson’s "True-Myth" perspective, heavily influenced by Carl Jung, suggests that a story is "true" if it accurately models the human condition and provides a functional map for navigating the world. If a fiction describes the "meta-patterns" of human behavior (like the hero’s journey or the sacrifice of the ego), it is "truer than true

Where is Mfb?  I guess he never got his tech issue solved.

(every time we get into ‘truth’, I think about him.)

Edited April 8 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

There are many reasons why I agree. Instead of the resurrected Christ entering a house on Easter evening through closed doors where the disciples had huddled in fear, no one would have come. Here is John's recollection about what Jesus said:

"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when he said this he breathed on them, and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit." 

---John 20:21, 22

Without this experience, I see the disciples' fearfulness subsiding fairly quickly. They would have lacked a sense of mission, of being sent by God to preach to the world. In seven weeks, instead of praying together for the Advocate to come ten days after seeing Jesus Ascension (which would not have happened either), for the coming of the Holy Spirit, they probably would have already begun to go their separate ways. They could not have any guilt about failure to carry a message of Christ's resurrection into the world. I think it would be normal to feel a sense of relief perhaps. They certainly shared some extraordinary years. Maybe they would have had a "class reunion" every so often?

The problem is that the Book of Acts and the Gospel of John came very late so their historicity is questionable at best. Acts is probably more a collection of legends rather than an eye witness account.

[3DOP]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that the Book of Acts and the Gospel of John came very late so their historicity is questionable at best. Acts is probably more a collection of legends rather than an eye witness account.

The dating of books seems irrelevant if Christ isn't risen from the dead. To be more clear, I was saying that if Christ was NOT resurrected, regardless of the dating of Acts and John's Gospel, the events described would not have taken place either. The post-resurrection experiences described in Acts and John's Gospel were lies, regardless of who wrote them and when, if Christ was not resurrected. Am in disagreement with you?

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

The dating of books seems irrelevant if Christ isn't risen from the dead. To be more clear, I was saying that if Christ was NOT resurrected, regardless of the dating of Acts and John's Gospel, the events described would not have taken place either. The post-resurrection experiences described in Acts and John's Gospel were lies, regardless of who wrote them and when, if Christ was not resurrected. Am in disagreement with you?

Yes, that follows. Where it gets evidentially weak is when you go with the reverse and say that the Gospel of John and the Book of Acts are evidence of the Resurrection.

[3DOP]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, that follows. Where it gets evidentially weak is when you go with the reverse and say that the Gospel of John and the Book of Acts are evidence of the Resurrection.

Indeed. I tend to agree. I thank you for pointing out a potential mistake in procedure. The first believers didn't have any New Testament to help them make the assent of faith to the Resurrection that was preached to them. I can live with the idea that we need not, 2,000 years later, quote ANY New Testament text, but especially those that LDS like yourself, would presumably accept, as pious fiction, but reject as historically accurate "evidence" of a Resurrection. I had not reckoned with the idea that Latter-day Saints would readily dismiss references to St. Paul's conversion as described in Acts, as a factor in Christian faith claims. But as admitted, I can give ground in that area, and tend to agree with your assessment. 

I still must also admit to being a little taken aback, by your position. In twenty-five years of interaction with LDS on the internet, I cannot recall the Latter-day-Saint who expressed doubt about the historicity of the book of Acts or the Gospel of John. This is a little off topic, since we both see that it is not necessarily pertinent to the question of the Resurrection, but should I know that this position against the historicity of the book of Acts and John's Gospel reflects that of some Apostles or other LDS church leaders? Do you see it as a growing development in the LDS mainstream? I had been thinking that most LDS were more "Catholic", if you will, in their view of New Testament Scripture than you seem to represent.

Maybe I have not been paying close attention? As I tried to say above, I assumed that Latter-day Saints had more latitude for doubt of literal historical value in the Scripture than I do as a Catholic. I was thinking about Noah's Ark or some of Samson's reported exploits which even I can legitimately take as pious, but inspired fiction. True myths as someone else has suggested. But I wouldn't have guessed that many Latter-day Saints have misgivings about the historicity of Acts and John's Gospel because "the Book of Acts and the Gospel of John came very late so their historicity is questionable at best. Acts is probably more a collection of legends rather than an eye witness account."

I truly don't mind being corrected in my naivete, even after 25 years of internet familiarity. Thanks, The Nehor for your consideration, and correction of any misunderstanding I may have been  entertaining about LDS beliefs. 

Rory