Christianity without a Resurrected Christ

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

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?   

I acknowledge the difference between Latria (the worship owed to God alone) and Dulia (the honor or "veneration" given to created beings) is a bedrock of how Catholics reconcile honoring the Saints or a King without it being guilty of "idolatry." A valid notion in modern Catholicism.

However, I am suggesting that the "Royal Cult" proponents like Maragret Barker goes a step farther. Barker focuses heavily on 1 Chronicles 29:20, where the assembly "bowed their heads and worshipped the LORD and the king." Not prostrating to God as an act of worship and prostrating to the king as an act of political respect. But Barker argues that in the original Temple context, it's a conjunction of identity. It is a single act of prostration directed at a single presence, who is both the king and the LORD.

The throne wasn't a piece of furniture owned by Solomon; it was a ritual seat that belonged to God. When the King sat there, he was merged into the divine identity. You aren't worshiping the man and the God; you are just worshiping God in the man.

In Hebrew, the verb for "worship/prostrate" (shachah) is applied to both subjects simultaneously. Barker argues this is because, the King is the "Anointed One" (Messiah). The king's anointing oil was believed to literally transmit the Spirit of the Lord into the King's body. The King often took a "throne name" that identified him with the Lord.

There was no separation during the rituals. On the day of coronation, the King was the Presence of the Lord. To honor the King was to honor the Lord, and to not worship the King was sacrilege against the Lord. If Jesus is a Royal Cultist of this tradition, we see he isn't asking for a lower degree of honor than God. The King was the focal point of worship intended for the Lord, they aren't worshipping Solomon, rather the Lord inside Solomon.

I want to point out the reason I still prefer the traditional real Resurrection, I believe though it isn't a completely original idea, it's not 1:1 as there are many features that are very unique in Jesus, rendering Jesus supremely significant. Like the idea of being the last blood sacrifice, opening up the royal priesthood to anyone worthy from a non-Davidic line is a unique change, not a mere Restoration of the old ways of David, but more like "fulfillment". While not every concept is unprecedented, some are. It's not safe to deny a literal death and resurrection, just because the story could be read as a mere royal resurrection drama or liturgy, because it's not all a pure throwback.

Edited April 27 by Pyreaux

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I acknowledge the difference between Latria (the worship owed to God alone) and Dulia (the honor or "veneration" given to created beings) is a bedrock of how Catholics reconcile honoring the Saints or a King without it being guilty of "idolatry." A valid notion in modern Catholicism.

However, I am suggesting that the "Royal Cult" proponents like Maragret Barker goes a step farther. Barker focuses heavily on 1 Chronicles 29:20, where the assembly "bowed their heads and worshipped the LORD and the king." Not prostrating to God as an act of worship and prostrating to the king as an act of political respect. But Barker argues that in the original Temple context, it's a conjunction of identity. It is a single act of prostration directed at a single presence, who is both the king and the LORD.

The throne wasn't a piece of furniture owned by Solomon; it was a ritual seat that belonged to God. When the King sat there, he was merged into the divine identity. You aren't worshiping the man and the God; you are just worshiping God in the man.

In Hebrew, the verb for "worship/prostrate" (shachah) is applied to both subjects simultaneously. Barker argues this is because, the King is the "Anointed One" (Messiah). The king's anointing oil was believed to literally transmit the Spirit of the Lord into the King's body. The King often took a "throne name" that identified him with the Lord.

There was no separation during the rituals. On the day of coronation, the King was the Presence of the Lord. To honor the King was to honor the Lord, and to not worship the King was sacrilege against the Lord. If Jesus is a Royal Cultist of this tradition, we see he isn't asking for a lower degree of honor than God. The King was the focal point of worship intended for the Lord, they aren't worshipping Solomon, rather the Lord inside Solomon.

I want to point out the reason I still prefer the traditional real Resurrection, I believe though it isn't a completely original idea, it's not 1:1 as there are many features that are very unique in Jesus, rendering Jesus supremely significant. Like the idea of being the last blood sacrifice, opening up the royal priesthood to anyone worthy from a non-Davidic line is a unique change, not a mere Restoration of the old ways of David, but more like "fulfillment". While not every concept is unprecedented, some are. It's not safe to deny a literal death and resurrection, just because the story could be read as a possible resurrection drama or liturgy.

Pyreaux. Good explanations. I do not think a Catholic needs to refute them.