http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/resurr.htm
This is a nice summation of the liberal Christian view that the resurrection was "probably" of a spiritual nature vs physical. Interesting site.
This does not address the whole issue of the trinity etc....but it does create an opening for a Unitarian Christian to claim the same theological stance.
"Ultimately my belief that Christ's resurrection was spiritual rather than physical is grounded in my view that God does not override the physical mechanics of the universe in order to act in history. That is perhaps a modern "anti-supernatural" world-view, but so be it. It seems illogical to me to say that God created the universe and its physical laws, and then to say that God is constantly overturning those laws in order to perform the miraculous. Certainly we do not know all of what the universe contains. But I find it possible, and even probable, that a spiritual dimension to the universe exists. Therefore it is primarily in those terms (i.e., a spiritual resurrection) that I look to give an explanation for Jesus' continued presence with us today."
As a Unitarian (of all stripes), does this opinion re the claimed resurrection of Jesus make any difference to your theological outlook?
I really like this approach (is this website run by Steve Jones, who wrote the articles for The American Unitarian?).
This is how I see the resurrection-I believe there is too much evidence to dismiss the resurrection from being real but exactly what form it took on is difficult to say. The idea of the spirit body makes perfect sense. I really like how the author reconciled the idea of a spiritual dimension of the universe with the quasi-deist concept of God not constantly breaking his own natural laws to intervene in supernatural ways. There is more to the universe than what meets the eye.
I see no compatability problems here with Unitarianism-this idea seems in tune with the idea that God elevated Jesus and represents Jesus as representing God in the world even if he was not the actual incarnation of God. On a somewhat non-related issue how do most of us here perceive Jesus? I have viewed him as a man who was specially chosen by God, exceptionally close to God and in many ways a "window" to God (divinity seen through a human lens so to speak). I take no position on what Jesus was on a metaphysical or ontological level. Since my views regarding God are more of the Jewish kind and I reject the Trinity the classical view of the Incarnation does not work for me. It is possible that the Spirit of God was specially "infused" in Jesus or that Jesus existed as a spiritual entity prior to his birth but who can know for sure?
Here's another interesting question: Does a pre-birth or supernatural nature to Jesus during his life affect his status after his death? Or could he have been a "normal" man during his life and elevated only after death? Whatever the case I find it hard to accept that Jesus was an ordinary man. Even if he had no supernatural qualities there still was something 'divine' about him-IMO at least.
Good questions...and historically there have been many groups (usually considered heretical) that adopted some of those views.
I believe Jesus was fully human...and like a few other religious visionaries...he may have reached a state of consciousness that can be described as "divinely inspired" (some interaction with God) or "transcendent" (where he encountered a wholly other state perceived as divine) or "enlightened" (a full realization of what is required to liberate the human soul). This passage is telling as well:
"Mark 3:21,31-34
When his family heard about this [i.e. that Jesus was preaching to a crowd] they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."...
What was his true psychological state?
The resurrection stories seem to have developed over time..with increasing and different details..so the possibility of "shaping" the story for various audiences cannot be dismissed.
However, it seems quite likely that something profound happened....what that was in not clear. The orthodox view held the there was a physical body and the "gnostics" argued a spiritual body. The orthodox view "won" out as we all know. However, Paul wrote before the Gospels and his encounter was strictly of the "psychological / spiritual" type. A mystery it remains. (I still don't rule out the possibility that Jesus survived.....)
I came across this passage in an article online that suggests embellishment was not unknown:
The Early Christian View of the Savior -
By Gary Amirault (he appears to be a Christian Universalist)
"...Saint Hilary, who said, commenting on Psalm 15:2, "For a lie is very often necessary and sometimes falsehood is useful." The "Golden Mouthed" John Chrysostom also advocated lying for truth's sake. Cussiun, a friend of Chrysostom, is author of a collection of spiritual ideas; one of the chapter headings is entitled "Even the Apostles teach us that falsehood is very often permissible, and the truth hurtful!" (Coll. xvii 20) Saint Basil expressly commends fraud employed for a good end (Hom. in prin. prov.) There were many church leaders who advocated lying. More examples may be found in chapter four of the book Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin, reprinted by Concordant Publishing Concern."
Interesting indeed. Perhaps Jesus opened himself up so fully to Divine that he truly "died to self" and became a vessel through which God shined through. I have read in many places that the specific idea of the Incarnation was a later evolution in belief-earlier forms of the belief tended to emphasize Jesus being chosen as at his baptism or being elevated to God's right-hand after his death.
I suppose we never will know what happened that first Easter Sunday. Something did though and as Marcus Borg has often said, the resurrection experience continues for us today. The lessons of the Resurrection itself-that death had been conquered, that good triumphed over evil-are too powerful to give up. There is much to learn and draw strength from here even if the events in question are fuzzy and the traditional stories altered.