Christianity without a Resurrected Christ

[3DOP]

On 4/7/2026 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

I commented on this previously here I 

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.

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Hi Smac. Thanks for replying. I agree with your view of Jesus' bodily Resurrection. Fictional heroes can be instructive, but I have never heard of anyone with a lifelong zeal to tell the world about them. I am not in a position to know how important historicity is to the Book of Mormon. I had been thinking that some LDS parties who have participated here were toying with it as pious fiction. In another post, I explained that I don't see LDS young people being motivated to give two years of their lives to missionary efforts to help people to see the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. But again, I could be wrong.

I have tentatively admitted elsewhere, I don't think I need New Testament evidence that Christ is risen. That the Galilean fishermen and other Apostles gave their lives to convincingly preaching a Resurrection which they never witnessed seems less credible than that they did witness it. What could give them such permanent fervour as they had to have to reach others with a "resurrected Jesus story" when they had to presume his death? Maybe I am naive, but I think my faith in the Resurrection event is a gift to my heart from God, what you all might call a testimony. I am thankful that I want it to be true. At the same time it seems reasonable to my intellect. The visible Resurrection of Christ to His disciples becomes the most plausible explanation I can think of for why Christianity took root and spread through the Roman Empire and over time, to the world beyond. I can give some answer to those who would wonder at my faith because the gift of faith is also reasonable. 

[Maestrophil]

Without the resurrection, Jesus was either a con-man or a nut. 

[3DOP]

On 4/7/2026 at 10:07 AM, 3DOP said:

Rory

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?

Rory

This morning I came upon another example of reduced "value" if the Resurrection is only inspired pious fiction. Baptism. In the Office of Readings (or Matins) for the Thursday after Easter we read the following in reference to our baptisms:

"This is something amazing and unheard of! It was not we who actually died, were buried and rose again. We only did these things symbolically, but we have been saved in actual fact. It was Christ who was crucified, who was buried and rose again, and all this has been attributed to us. We share in his sufferings symbolically and gain salvation in reality."

---From the Jerusalem Catecheses, Mystagogia 3, 1-3: PG 33, 1087-1091 (PG and PL refer to a collection of Greek Fathers "G" or Latin Fathers "L". The P stands for Patrologia words of the Greek or Latin Fathers). I had not heard of the Jerusalem Catecheses before today.

When I was a Baptist preacher, we said these words while baptizing, "...buried in the likeness of his death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection." Do LDS see a parallel with baptism as death and resurrection? 

calm

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?

Rory

Everything must be not merely close, but must be as taught. I have explained elsewhere how the Church gives wide latitude in certain areas and not in others. The doctrine of papal infallibility actually increases the latitude because there have only been two or three such papal declarations. There are probably a number of doctrines that have never been definitively hashed out, but no Catholic should without careful and prayerful examination, doubt. I believe everything the Catholic Church believes and teaches. 

The Assumption of Mary was not declared definitively until 1950! But before that, it was quite secure. Churches were name after the Assumption. A first class feast day was celebrated throughout the Church centuries before it was formally declared as dogma. A Catholic might have been rash and presumptious to express doubts that the Assumption was "Catholic teaching" before 1950. But I don't think they could be condemned. Maybe they were put off by the lack of biblical evidence, or the apocryphal story which might be true, about all the Apostles gathered from around the world at Mary's grave that was full of roses. Even today, some Catholics would find my lack of faith in that story as evidence of a lack of submission to the Catholic faith. It comes late in the Fathers and the Assumption itself does not seem to be known by Fathers of the early centuries like St. Irenaeus who spoke extensively about Mary's prominence in Catholic thought. There is no explicit biblical evidence. So, for the record, I believe the dogma as a doctrinal development that is implied by the biblical evidence. I really and truly believe Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, shortly after she died.

I am trying, but probably failing to illustrate how there is a grade of necessary beliefs in the Church about the teaching, and the evidence that supports the teaching. It is usually important to believe the teaching the Church defines, without necessarily accepting the evidence given for a teaching.  

In an earlier post, while romanticizing about always being glad, for the sake of unity, to find agreement, I mentioned that the remarks I would be making here to you cal, would demonstrate the impracticality of "going to church together". Theological beliefs are reflected in ceremonial practices and worship. I just want to say it is not necessarily through any lack of desire to be one in worship that divides. We are divided because of beliefs.  How could Protestants and LDS celebrate a Feast of the Assumption? How could Catholics put it aside after all these centuries? Some of our less dogmatic friends would appeal to our love for each other and stress the putting aside of beliefs. I am not in favor. The prophet Amos quoted a rhetorical truism of his day: "How can two walk together unless they be agreed." It would be a dissatisfying "oneness" that we could celebrate while being in disagreement with each other about faith and morals. But what do others think of that idea of putting aside dogma for the sake of unity?

If there appears to be interest, I could try to explain why I fear that the Reformation and the Great Schism of 1054 AD, between East and West, has had an enormous effect at making Christians rather cavalier about starting their own church communities, separate from even any appearance of Apostolic continuity and authority. To me, this is the greatest strength of LDS claims. However we differ about other questions of faith and morals, no one can accuse Joseph Smith or his faithful followers to the present, of failing to recognize the need to identify the one true church that Christ founded (or restored). 

 

Edited April 9 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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 

Please don’t take my views as typical of LDS. They are not. Most LDS accept the historicity of pretty much all of the New Testament.

I am dubious of pretty much all of the Book of Acts and most of what is in the gospels. The letters that most scholars believe are genuinely from Paul I accept as legitimate. I do believe that Paul had some kind of conversion experience as he describes.

The cynic in me sees the Book of Acts as an attempt to bridge Peter and Paul and put them on the same side. In Paul’s description of his meeting with Peter I get the impression from Paul’s description of the encounter that the two of them didn’t agree on much and Peter was content to let Paul do his own thing and vice versa.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Without the resurrection, Jesus was either a con-man or a nut. 

That is similar to a C.S. Lewis apologetic and I have grown dubious of the argument. C.S. Lewis believed that Jesus went around claiming to be God and says that would make Him insane. That depends on which gospel you are reading. In some of the others it is more like Jesus claimed He carried the name of God or God’s authority which is not quite as insane. It ignores that in the ancient world there were a lot more shades between being mortal and divine that don’t survive in our own culture.

I would say that without the Resurrection Jesus was another failed messiah. For comparison we have Sabbatai Zevi who many Jews throughout the world thought was the messiah. Then he was threatened with death and converted to Islam. Some suggested it was a false conversion as part of his path to fulfilling prophecy and he would recant it later. Then Sabbatai Zevi died and there were still some believers who thought that he would come back to life and fulfill the prophecies and complete his messianic mission. Some believers survived (mostly covertly) with Judaism until at least the late 19th century. When it ended isn’t clear since his followers were within mainstream Judaism. It is possible that some survived and kept that belief alive longer and that the holocaust ended the movement. It is also possible some are quietly continuing this belief to this day. I doubt it but possible.

The parallels are pretty obvious. When the messiah fails by dying followers can come up with ways that the messiah can still succeed and/or renegotiate the messianic mission to fit what the person did even if that doesn’t include the main messianic promises. Then a belief that they will come back and fulfill the rest.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

11 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

Without the resurrection, Jesus was either a con-man or a nut. 

Or a failed visionary with a reputation inflated by his followers. Anytime someone wants to push extreme dichotomies I am immediately wary. Human's are complex, full of shades of gray - nothing outside of fairy tales is ever black and white.

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Please don’t take my views as typical of LDS. They are not. Most LDS accept the historicity of pretty much all of the New Testament.

I am dubious of pretty much all of the Book of Acts and most of what is in the gospels. The letters that most scholars believe are genuinely from Paul I accept as legitimate. I do believe that Paul had some kind of conversion experience as he describes.

The cynic in me sees the Book of Acts as an attempt to bridge Peter and Paul and put them on the same side. In Paul’s description of his meeting with Peter I get the impression from Paul’s description of the encounter that the two of them didn’t agree on much and Peter was content to let Paul do his own thing and vice versa.

 

[3DOP]

46 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

 

I can't figure out how to quote you properly The Nehor. Let me simply thank you for your reply. I know little about biblical criticism. The Catholic Church recognizes the need for what She calls the historico-critical method.

Do you have any book recommendations to explain your own journey? Have you had formal training? Was there a time when you were more mainstream? If so, was the transition painful? All of my many "conversions" have been accompanied by painful and distressing human disagreement with friends and family. But peace follows when I think I have moved in the right direction.

Thanks for your candor. 

Edited to PS: I respect any reticence to be fully candid. Just ignore and you will lose no respect from me.

 

Edited April 9 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

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

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

Yeah Calm, sorry, have you always capitalized? I know you will forgive me for such a detail.

Anyway, Mfb has had his effect on me. I fear it hasn't gone the other way. He can be so dogmatic philosophically. A transcendent God won't hear my prayers. "Whatever", say I.

Maybe speculatively true before the Gospel of Jesus, is how I think, when we who are created out of nothing hear something that makes us believe that this "wholly other creator"...loves us "nothings" like He loves the Uncreated Persons of His family! And He wants to elevate our own created nature to be like His own...divine and uncreated and make us part of the family. The Godhead! 

I don't know why people hate such a story or myth. Who would not at least WANT it to be true? Anyway, I like it. A lot. I don't think Mark or a lot of LDS, or even atheists hate it, properly understood.

But I wish I could, or somebody else, Bp. Barron and all the saints help us, could make Catholic theology less obtuse and absurd to Mark while respecting and incorporating his epistemology. MYSTERY.

I know Mfb would want to be part of this conversation. I miss you Mark.

Anyway, If you can see this Mark, God bless you my often Nemesis. You have frustrated me more than you know over the years. My fault, not yours. But you have made me think and adjust. For that and for your sometimes hard to detect good will, you are my friend and I am yours. May we praise God together...soon.

 

 

[Pyreaux]

On 4/8/2026 at 2:32 PM, 3DOP said:

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.  

Gnosticism is often oversimplified. Gnostics were diverse groups that had different nuanced views. The sort of 'Gnosticism' found in texts like the Gospel of Philip isn't always the dualistic 'matter-hating' philosophy of other Gnostics we often hear about. The Gospel of Philip is quite unique and scholars often see Philip not as a finished book, but as a florilegium, a collection of excerpts or speaker notes. Because the paragraphs are often disconnected, we are likely missing the oral context that explained how these ideas fit together. It’s hard to claim he is being purely anti-material when we only have the 'bullet points.'

The text says the Mount of Transfiguration was an Endowment Ritual. Philip suggests the resurrection was on the 'Mount.' Those eight initiatory days that ended on the 8th day, Sunday, was when Christ received his white robe, the Robes of Resurrection.

He's seems to stress the importance of earthy ordinances (initiatory death rituals), like baptism (death), chrism (quickening) and endowment in white (resurrection) before you physically die. Philip says, 'Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.' This resurrection is a transformation or 'clothing' of the person in resurrection while they are still here.

It is a common misconception that the Nag Hammadi library is a "Bible" In reality, it includes many different and sometimes conflicting worldviews. Gospel of Philip was discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi library, often categorized as Valentinian Gnosticism because it has all five sacraments. The Apocryphon of John belonged to Sethian Gnosticism and is more rebellious about the physical world. The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth belong to the Hermetic tradition of Egypt, focusing on mystical ascent through knowledge of the stars and the divine mind. The library includes a poor translation of Plato’s Republic. The Sentences of Sextus is a collection of ethical proverbs that would have been perfectly acceptable to mainstream Christians of the time. The variety suggests that early Christians were reading a massive spectrum of thought before they were cracked down upon.

 

[3DOP]

8 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Gnosticism is often oversimplified. Gnostics were diverse groups that had different nuanced views. The sort of 'Gnosticism' found in texts like the Gospel of Philip isn't always the dualistic 'matter-hating' philosophy of other Gnostics we often hear about. The Gospel of Philip is quite unique and scholars often see Philip not as a finished book, but as a florilegium, a collection of excerpts or speaker notes. Because the paragraphs are often disconnected, we are likely missing the oral context that explained how these ideas fit together. It’s hard to claim he is being purely anti-material when we only have the 'bullet points.'

The text says the Mount of Transfiguration was an Endowment Ritual. Philip suggests the resurrection was on the 'Mount.' Those eight initiatory days that ended on the 8th day, Sunday, was when Christ received his white robe, the Robes of Resurrection.

He's seems to stress the importance of earthy ordinances (initiatory death rituals), like baptism (death), chrism (quickening) and endowment in white (resurrection) before you physically die. Philip says, 'Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing.' This resurrection is a transformation or 'clothing' of the person in resurrection while they are still here.

It is a common misconception that the Nag Hammadi library is a "Bible" In reality, it includes many different and sometimes conflicting worldviews. Gospel of Philip was discovered as part of the Nag Hammadi library, often categorized as Valentinian Gnosticism because it has all five sacraments. The Apocryphon of John belonged to Sethian Gnosticism and is more rebellious about the physical world. The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth belong to the Hermetic tradition of Egypt, focusing on mystical ascent through knowledge of the stars and the divine mind. The library includes a poor translation of Plato’s Republic. The Sentences of Sextus is a collection of ethical proverbs that would have been perfectly acceptable to mainstream Christians of the time. The variety suggests that early Christians were reading a massive spectrum of thought before they were cracked down upon.

 

Pyreaux, hi again.

We need baptism before resurrection? Okay. I was just speaking of Matins this morning where it speaks of buried in death, but coming out of the water illuminated and resurrected. 

Appointed to us once to die, after this the Judgment. Hebrews something. 2:3? Between death and judgment, you all have the possibility of baptism. We need baptism, which is resurrection while we live, (even if we don't appreciate it.

 

 

[3DOP]

My back has been killing me, not literally, figuratively, and forgive me, I have availed myself of some liquid joy and pain relief that is permissible in my religion. I hope I have not been too effusively lovey dovey or amenable when I should have been antagonistic after only two drinks.

I know how you guys hate, Hate, HATE a drink. Anyway, I should refrain from anymore writing until tomorrow. I will see you on the other side. May it be with the sober inebriation of a much better spirit/Spirit than my cheap Bacardi rum.

Thanks for your patience.

R

[Calm]

8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Appointed to us once to die, after this the Judgment. Hebrews something. 2:3? Between death and judgment, you all have the possibility of baptism. We need baptism, which is resurrection while we live, (even if we don't appreciate it.

 

Hebrews 9:27. 
 

Quote

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I hope you sleep well and wake up pain free. 

My back had enough of tidying up (sister is coming tomorrow, I always tear through the house finishing all the little stuff I have been ignoring when she comes, which is so satisfying but often exhausting these days), so I am feeling the pain along with you.  Thankfully I have my own indulgence for relief.  

I haven’t touched alcohol except for a few drops in a medicinal tincture (passionflower iirc, love the burn down my throat btw) since my son was a baby 43 years ago and I got a bad allergy attack and felt miserable. My husband swore by NyQuil (until several years ago when I finally convinced him the studies were showing it wasn’t helping him sleep that well), so I tried it. I was climbing the walls most of the night. Apparently alcohol sets off my rls big time…and that was even before I was really noticing it.  Took another ten years and a baby to really kick in.  (Antihistamine which is also in NyQuil ain’t great for rls, but rls was still light enough back then that Benadryl put me to sleep)

I figured out the rls-alcohol connection because when my brother was a wee one, the doctor recommended a tablespoon of whiskey when he had trouble sleeping due to teething (my brother, not the doctor as I suspect the doctor, who was military, probably had a bit more than a tablespoon when he took it to relax).  Unfortunately for my parents, that led to my brother being awake most of the night (RLS is strong in my family.  My father has it.  I have it.  And…my brother has it.)

I used to be jealous of those who could use alcohol to get some sleep.  I have since learned it may knock you out, but quality suffers…getting knocked out sounds wonderful about now though.

 

Edited April 10 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Yeah Calm, sorry, have you always capitalized?

I guess so?  I don’t think I have changed it since I shortened calmoriah (I was high on morphine after surgery at the time and eight letters seem enormously long to me).

It’s funny because I have always thought of “calm” as lowercase for some reason (maybe because it’s not really a proper noun).  I can’t remember why I first capitalized it.  Maybe it was automatic and I didn’t notice before submitting. 

Quote

I know you will forgive me for such a detail.

I actually prefer it lowercase, but either way is fine as it’s a minor preference. 

And I still feel like I shouldn’t bug the moderators to change it since they were kind enough to humor my stoned request eleven years ago (if I am remembering the date correctly).

Edited April 10 by Calm

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Hebrews 9:27. 
 

I hope you sleep well and wake up pain free. 

My back had enough of tidying up (sister is coming tomorrow, I always tear through the house finishing all the little stuff I have been ignoring when she comes, which is so satisfying but often exhausting these days), so I am feeling the pain along with you.  Thankfully I have my own indulgence for relief.  

I haven’t touched alcohol except for a few drops in a medicinal tincture (passionflower iirc, love the burn down my throat btw) since my son was a baby 43 years ago and I got a bad allergy attack and felt miserable. My husband swore by NyQuil (until several years ago when I finally convinced him the studies were showing it wasn’t helping him sleep that well), so I tried it. I was climbing the walls most of the night. Apparently alcohol sets off my rls big time…and that was even before I was really noticing it.  Took another ten years and a baby to really kick in.  (Antihistamine which is also in NyQuil ain’t great for rls, but rls was still light enough back then that Benadryl put me to sleep)

I figured out the rls-alcohol connection because when my brother was a wee one, the doctor recommended a tablespoon of whiskey when he had trouble sleeping due to teething (my brother, not the doctor as I suspect the doctor, who was military, probably had a bit more than a tablespoon when he took it to relax).  Unfortunately for my parents, that led to my brother being awake most of the night (RLS is strong in my family.  My father has it.  I have it.  And…my brother has it.)

I used to be jealous of those who could use alcohol to get some sleep.  I have since learned it may knock you out, but quality suffers…getting knocked out sounds wonderful about now though.

 

The Sudafed in the old NyQuil is what did me in. Horrible dreams all night, raging heartbeat, dilated pupils and altered mental state. Which is annoying because Sudafed is one of the only medicines we have that actually works for head colds. 

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I can't figure out how to quote you properly The Nehor. Let me simply thank you for your reply. I know little about biblical criticism. The Catholic Church recognizes the need for what She calls the historico-critical method.

Do you have any book recommendations to explain your own journey? Have you had formal training? Was there a time when you were more mainstream? If so, was the transition painful? All of my many "conversions" have been accompanied by painful and distressing human disagreement with friends and family. But peace follows when I think I have moved in the right direction.

Thanks for your candor. 

Edited to PS: I respect any reticence to be fully candid. Just ignore and you will lose no respect from me.

 

No really good book recommendations and no formal training. I kind of did this review of scripture on my own and turned to the opinion of experts on matters of translation and some other questions.

And yeah, it is painful. Mostly internal. I haven’t made any major public shifts in my life. Only a few close friends know what I am doing and trying to figure out. 

[3DOP]

Some of you might have seen the thread over at the Social Hall about the new space launch, and the question that some have regarding whether we actually went to the Moon?

There is a parallel with disbelieving we went to the moon and disbelieving that Christ rose from the dead! I just thought of this.

Both require a conspiracy theory. 

Both involve large numbers of conspirators who aren't necessarily your spy/sleuth types who are practiced at the art of deception. And they never reveal the trick they played on the gullible.

Another thing that all conspiracy theories require is a motive. What do the conspirators have to gain?

I just realized that without opening a Bible that my beliefs are supported by the same reasoning for believing Christ's Resurrection as I do for believing in the Apollo Moon Landing.

To be sure, I also want to believe both are true. In the case of Christ, it becomes a matter of faith that God gave me the disposition (grace), to want the Resurrection to be true. With regards to the moon, its not faith. It is just an observance of human behavior and inability to see why the US government and technical collaborators from many different disciplines, would risk cooperating to make a hoax that not one would ever reveal. And I believe Pres. Kennedy's reason for why we were going. "Not because it is easy...". Heh.

 

   

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Some of you might have seen the thread over at the Social Hall about the new space launch, and the question that some have regarding whether we actually went to the Moon?

There is a parallel with disbelieving we went to the moon and disbelieving that Christ rose from the dead! I just thought of this.

Both require a conspiracy theory. 

Both involve large numbers of conspirators who aren't necessarily your spy/sleuth types who are practiced at the art of deception. And they never reveal the trick they played on the gullible.

Another thing that all conspiracy theories require is a motive. What do the conspirators have to gain?

I just realized that without opening a Bible that my beliefs are supported by the same reasoning for believing Christ's Resurrection as I do for believing in the Apollo Moon Landing.

To be sure, I also want to believe both are true. In the case of Christ, it becomes a matter of faith that God gave me the disposition (grace), to want the Resurrection to be true. With regards to the moon, its not faith. It is just an observance of human behavior and inability to see why the US government and technical collaborators from many different disciplines, would risk cooperating to make a hoax that not one would ever reveal. And I believe Pres. Kennedy's reason for why we were going. "Not because it is easy...". Heh.   

I don’t think they are comparable and I don’t think the Resurrection being preached requires a conspiracy theory or any kind of deception or malicious manipulation. It requires someone (probably Peter) to have a kind of post-death experience with Jesus. A vision, seeing him, or whatever. Seeing a dead person who is not actually there is not rare. It is a psychological phenomena we don’t understand very well but it is well attested. Having a mystical experience regarding a dead person isn’t rare either.

It is much more difficult to believe this was ‘faked’ without conspiracy if you have to believe the post-Resurrection accounts in some of the gospels or the experiences in Acts with multiple witnesses. The problem is that these were first written much later. Peter was almost certainly dead by this point and even if he wasn’t he had no realistic way to police the accounts and issue corrections. The rest of the Twelve vanish from the historical record or quickly die with the partial exception of John and we don’t know much about what he got up to. The accounts of the other disciples/apostles all being martyred in various ways come much much later and some are so fantastical almost no one takes them seriously. You see a progression in the gospels as they involve more explicit supernatural elements as time went on and many of the gospels written after John are really trippy.

I just don’t see a need for a conspiracy to pull this off. Peter could be completely sincere and wrong but he had no real control of the story outside of maybe the local story. Christianity wouldn’t be comprehensively systematized for a long time and the Gnostics were (as far as we know) the first to try.

Pulling off the moon landing hoax would require a massive conspiracy involving hundreds of people who all kept quiet. Even more difficult to deal with would be the physical evidence. They brought back moon rocks and hundreds of people not involved with the space program studied them extensively.

[Vanguard]

On 4/9/2026 at 1:51 PM, 3DOP said:

Yeah Calm, sorry, have you always capitalized? I know you will forgive me for such a detail.

Anyway, Mfb has had his effect on me. I fear it hasn't gone the other way. He can be so dogmatic philosophically. A transcendent God won't hear my prayers. "Whatever", say I.

Maybe speculatively true before the Gospel of Jesus, is how I think, when we who are created out of nothing hear something that makes us believe that this "wholly other creator"...loves us "nothings" like He loves the Uncreated Persons of His family! And He wants to elevate our own created nature to be like His own...divine and uncreated and make us part of the family. The Godhead! 

I don't know why people hate such a story or myth. Who would not at least WANT it to be true? Anyway, I like it. A lot. I don't think Mark or a lot of LDS, or even atheists hate it, properly understood.

But I wish I could, or somebody else, Bp. Barron and all the saints help us, could make Catholic theology less obtuse and absurd to Mark while respecting and incorporating his epistemology. MYSTERY.

I know Mfb would want to be part of this conversation. I miss you Mark.

Anyway, If you can see this Mark, God bless you my often Nemesis. You have frustrated me more than you know over the years. My fault, not yours. But you have made me think and adjust. For that and for your sometimes hard to detect good will, you are my friend and I am yours. May we praise God together...soon.

 

 

Ha! Finally I found this. Was just now for the first time reading the thread and the first thing that popped into my head was Mfb!! : ) He too has played with my head a bit. I wish I could find him to continue the exchange about the notion that ALL of these things do not have to be as we have conceptualized over time.

[MrShorty]

FWIW, One of my recent podcast choices was from Bart Ehrman's (notable atheist who is also a prominent New Testament scholar) podcast. At some point, he was asked what he thinks it was about the way Christ taught that made Christianity so successful. His answer fit right into this thread. He said that it wasn't so much something that Christ said or taught or anything, it was ultimately that His followers believed He had been raised from the dead.

(If you want to hear it from Ehrman himself, it is episode 182 of his Misquoting Jesus podcast, towards the end during the "Ask Bart" segment.)

Edited April 20 by MrShorty

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

FWIW, One of my recent podcast choices was from Bart Ehrman's (notable atheist who is also a prominent New Testament scholar) podcast. At some point, he was asked what he thinks it was about the way Christ taught that made Christianity so successful. His answer fit right into this thread. He said that it wasn't so much something that Christ said or taught or anything, it was ultimately that His followers believed He had been raised from the dead.

(If you want to hear it from Ehrman himself, it is episode 182 of his Misquoting Jesus podcast, towards the end during the "Ask Bart" segment.)

Like Bart Ehrman.

And Jesus was expected to be a messiah. What happens when you put your life aside to follow a messiah and it doesn’t work out?

A modern equivalent would be these people who come along every few years and give an exact date for the end of the world or Second Coming. When it fails some people leave but most stick around and start reframing things.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses had important prophecy dates in 1874, 1878, 1914, 1918, 1925, and 1975. They reframed them each time. 1914 was originally the end of all earthly governments and was reframed as the beginning of the invisible reign of Christ while the generation living in 1914 was reframed as seeing Jesus’s glorious return. Later they had to reinterpret what a generation meant.

The LDS Church has also stretched out what a generation means in order to save some D&C prophecies. The Christians of the ancient world expected Jesus to return very soon and within the lifetime of those living and Paul supported this belief. That didn’t work out either. Then those expectations were reinterpreted.

When Sabbatai Zevi was expected to be the Jewish messiah and then died before he could fulfill the prophecies the belief sprang up that he would come back to life to make those prophecies be fulfilled. Jesus is similar except the teaching was that Jesus had come back to life and then there was a huge theological scramble to figure out what that meant.

[Pyreaux]

There was a mortal king who died named Melchizedek. Yet he was often viewed by some as not just as a historical king, but as a heavenly being and a resurrected immortal figure. Hebrews 7 describes him as having been "raised up," or rather "resurrected", with "neither beginning of days nor end of life". In a royal cult context, this refers to his enduring office, not the biological man. When a Davidic king was anointed, he became "another" Melchizedek. He stepped out of linear time and into an eternal priesthood.

Maybe Jesus successfully ascended into this very specific, pre-existing "immortal" royal office. In many ancient royal cults, the king underwent a symbolic death and rebirth during his coronation or high-holy-day rituals. When Jesus receives the "white and seamless robe," he is being ritually "clothed" in his resurrection body. Hence, in Philip's or Pseudo-Phillip's reckoning, the spiritual "Resurrection" had already happened before he died.

If the disciples and Jesus were part of an older mystery tradition or a royal cult, their language was technically accurate within their framework. To the cultist, the ritual is a reality. If the ritual says you are now an immortal god of after the order of Melchizedek, then you are. Even if you died. The Roman Empire could kill the man, but they couldn't kill his status as another Melchizedek.

It's a bit distasteful and a far less romantic notion. But it's difficult to parcel out the difference between an ancient king and Jesus. Technically, Jesus wasn't the only would-be incarnation of the Lord. Margaret Barker said Solomon was worshipped as an avatar of the Lord.

The First Temple period, the King was the human presence of the Lord. Solomon was anointed and he didn't just represent God; he was "begotten" as the Son of God (Psalm 2:7), when he sat on the "Throne of the Lord" the people were "worshipping the Lord and the King" at the same time because the Lord was embodied inside the man Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:23). 

Edited April 27 by Pyreaux

[longview]

16 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The First Temple period, the King was the human presence of the Lord. Solomon was anointed . . .

I would like to pick your brain. Several decades ago, I read of an Israeli general who was on the phone asking: "Is this the end of the fifth temple?" This was during a surprise offensive by Arab nations. That caused me to ponder ever since. I came up with the following:

1. Tabernacle of Moses. Transportable thru 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. And various places in the Promised Land.
2. Temple of Solomon. First solid edifice and the most magnificent. It was destroyed by the Babylonian conquest.
3. Temple of Zerubbabel. Not as glorious as Solomon's. Lasted for many centuries but underwent serious decay?
4. Temple of Herod the Great. A massive upgrade including an impressive complex on the temple mount. It was destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman Empire.
5. Fifth Temple. Prophesied to be built in Old Jerusalem before the Second Coming.

Are you aware of which Jewish sects that use those kinds of designations? I inquired of chatGPT:

Quote

1) Standard Jewish historical framework (your first four)

Your outline is mostly accurate, but historians and Jewish sources typically frame it like this:

• Tabernacle (Mishkan) – portable sanctuary in the wilderness and early Israelite period.
• First Temple (Solomon’s Temple) – destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
• Second Temple – begun under Zerubbabel after the return from exile.
• Herod’s Temple – not a separate temple, but a massive renovation/expansion of the Second Temple. It was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

👉 Key correction:
Most Jewish and academic sources do not count Herod’s Temple as a “fourth temple.” It is considered the Second Temple in its later (Herodian) form.

---

2) The “Third Temple” concept (future)

In mainstream Judaism:

• The expected future temple is called the “Third Temple.”
• It is tied to Messianic expectations—especially in Orthodox Judaism.
• Many traditional authorities hold that only the Messiah can rebuild it, not human political action.

At the same time, there are activist movements (a small minority), such as:

• the Temple Institute–type groups preparing vessels, priestly garments, etc.

These groups are real but not representative of most Jews.

---

3) Do any Jewish groups use “Fourth” or “Fifth Temple” language?

Short answer: almost none in normative Judaism.

What you’ll actually find:

• Mainstream Judaism:
  • Counts only First Temple and Second Temple
  • Future = Third Temple
• Occasional alternative numbering:
  • Some writers (rarely) speak of:
    • Zerubbabel’s phase vs. Herod’s expansion separately
  • But even then, they still call the future one the Third Temple
• “Fifth Temple” language:
  • This is not standard in Jewish theology
  • It shows up mostly in:
    • speculative Christian end-times systems
    • fringe interpretations
    • misremembered or anecdotal quotes

There is no recognized Jewish sect that formally teaches a sequence ending in a “Fifth Temple.”

---

4) About the Israeli general quote

I could not find a reliable historical source for the quote:

“Is this the end of the fifth temple?”

Given the lack of documentation, the most likely explanations are:

• misremembered wording
• paraphrase from a sermon or commentary
• confusion with “Third Temple” apocalyptic language that became popular after the Six-Day War, when control of Jerusalem intensified messianic speculation

---

5) Why your “five temples” idea feels intuitive (but isn’t standard)

Your schema:

1. Tabernacle
2. Solomon
3. Zerubbabel
4. Herod
5. Future

This is a logical architectural progression, but Jewish tradition groups it differently:

• Tabernacle = precursor
• Zerubbabel + Herod = one continuous Second Temple period
• Future = Third

So your “five” comes from splitting what Judaism keeps unified.

---

Bottom line for your forum post

You could summarize it like this (accurately and defensibly):

• Judaism recognizes two historical temples and anticipates a Third Temple.
• Herod’s expansion is not counted as a separate temple.
• The idea of a “fifth temple” is not part of any mainstream Jewish sect’s theology.
• Groups that emphasize rebuilding a temple today exist, but they are minority movements, not representative of Judaism as a whole.

 

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

There was a mortal king who died named Melchizedek. Yet he was often viewed by some as not just as a historical king, but as a heavenly being and a resurrected immortal figure. Hebrews 7 describes him as having been "raised up," or rather "resurrected", with "neither beginning of days nor end of life". In a royal cult context, this refers to his enduring office, not the biological man. When a Davidic king was anointed, he became "another" Melchizedek. He stepped out of linear time and into an eternal priesthood.

Maybe Jesus successfully ascended into this very specific, pre-existing "immortal" royal office. In many ancient royal cults, the king underwent a symbolic death and rebirth during his coronation or high-holy-day rituals. When Jesus receives the "white and seamless robe," he is being ritually "clothed" in his resurrection body. Hence, in Philip's or Pseudo-Phillip's reckoning, the spiritual "Resurrection" had already happened before he died.

If the disciples and Jesus were part of an older mystery tradition or a royal cult, their language was technically accurate within their framework. To the cultist, the ritual is a reality. If the ritual says you are now an immortal god of after the order of Melchizedek, then you are. Even if you died. The Roman Empire could kill the man, but they couldn't kill his status as another Melchizedek.

It's a bit distasteful and a far less romantic notion. But it's difficult to parcel out the difference between an ancient king and Jesus. Technically, Jesus wasn't the only would-be incarnation of the Lord. Margaret Barker said Solomon was worshipped as an avatar of the Lord.

The First Temple period, the King was the human presence of the Lord. Solomon was anointed and he didn't just represent God; he was "begotten" as the Son of God (Psalm 2:7), when he sat on the "Throne of the Lord" the people were "worshipping the Lord and the King" at the same time because the Lord was embodied inside the man Solomon (1 Chronicles 29:23). 

Hi Pyreaux. Very interesting.

The translations of the Hebrew that I read distinguish God from gods in different places. The "gods" receive a reverence that is fitting for their representation of God. It seems fitting to make an obeisance before the "gods of God". It should be separated in degree from the veneration given to the God of gods.

St. Peter instructs the flock of Christ in 1 Peter 2:17 (from memory): "Honor all men. Fear God. Love the Brotherhood. Honor the Emperor". When Christ became incarnate, my Church teahces that in a certain sense He united Himself with every man. We see Christ in everyone, and thus we are instructed to hold all in some kind of reverence. Likewise with the Emperor, according to his office. We are to love our equals, the brotherhood. But we fear God alone. 

I could comment further, but it would distract us from the thread topic. 

I think Pyreaux, I can assume that a bodily resurrected Christ escapes the distasteful and unromantic belief that existed prior to Christianity?   

[Pyreaux]

5 minutes ago, longview said:

I would like to pick your brain. Several decades ago, I read of an Israeli general who was on the phone asking: "Is this the end of the fifth temple?" This was during a surprise offensive by Arab nations. That caused me to ponder ever since. I came up with the following:

1. Tabernacle of Moses. Transportable thru 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. And various places in the Promised Land.
2. Temple of Solomon. First solid edifice and the most magnificent. It was destroyed by the Babylonian conquest.
3. Temple of Zerubbabel. Not as glorious as Solomon's. Lasted for many centuries but underwent serious decay?
4. Temple of Herod the Great. A massive upgrade including an impressive complex on the temple mount. It was destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman Empire.
5. Fifth Temple. Prophesied to be built in Old Jerusalem before the Second Coming.

Are you aware of which Jewish sects that use those kinds of designations? I inquired of chatGPT:

 

The Chatbot is correct, the commonly called "First" Temple is Solomon's Temple, the time of Davidic kings, as opposed to all shrines like Bethel. The Second Temple being Herod. They split these eras up in by their different beliefs. The First Temple era believed in a 3 partitioned heaven like Solomon's Temple had 3 areas, Second Temple Jews from Babylon believed 7 heavens because Harod's Temple had 7 areas.