The Resurrection Isn’t the Moral of the Story
Not believing in the resurrection is a deeper Christian belief
Ask 99.9% of Christians, and they’ll tell you that without the Resurrection of Jesus, Christianity is as useful as a mojito without rum. The Resurrection is the whole point of Christianity.
In 2010, Christianity.com laid it out like this, “Without the Resurrection of Jesus Christ -”
- the Gospels would be meaningless
- forgiveness of sins would be meaningless
- present life would be joyless
- Godly living would be fruitless
- future life would be worthless
However, I saw this today, and wanted to think this out:
Easter isn’t about Jesus being literally resurrected to sit on the throne in heaven. Easter is about becoming the resurrection so that Jesus lives on through our actions. — Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines
I know stating that the Resurrection didn’t happen will ruffle feathers, especially as mentioned above since most Christians think their faith will fall apart without a resurrected Jesus. But hear me out: Being a Christian isn’t very useful. Doing the work is useful. Believing in a resurrected Jesus, who then takes care of all your needs, is just lazy. You can be saved, go to heaven, and not do a thing for anyone else. Going to church shouldn’t be the sacrificial work of a Christian.
Obligatory clarification: yes, there are good Christians who take the words of Jesus seriously. I love these people. But let’s be honest. Tens of millions of Christians voted for Trump. How serious can they be about Jesus? And I fear they are the majority.
The Resurrection story is a moment based on faith. It’s not historical. As Bart Ehrman states, it can’t be historical for many reasons, one being, that since this was unique and supernatural, it falls outside the genre of historical. Especially since the only evidence is in the Bible itself, which is circular logic. In fact, most defenses of the resurrection are all based on what the Bible says.
So obviously, the Bible must nail down the Resurrection. Right?
Nope.
The Gospels are fairly consistent with the life and death of Jesus. There are some differences, but many can be expected. However, when you look at the Resurrection, the Gospels are wildly inconsistent. Why aren’t there any similarities at all? Here are some explanations, just to point out where others may disagree with me, but I haven’t seen anyone try to explain why the Resurrection seems to be treated differently than other parts of his life. Even Paul’s story is mixed: was it a vision (described in Acts), the real Jesus (as described in 1 Corinthians?) It’s a mess.
For example, the original version of Mark doesn’t even mention the Resurrection (100 years later, scribes altered the story). The Ascension is only found in Luke, and each Gospel differs on whether they should meet in Galilee, or stay in Jerusalem. It should be very noticeable that while the Gospels have a lot of coherence with the life and death of Jesus, there is none with his Resurrection.
So in reality, the only resource that should offer proof for the Resurrection lacks evidence.
Let’s get back to the earlier points of why the Resurrection was important, and why those aren’t strong arguments:
The Gospels would be meaningless. Why? These still establish the historicity of Jesus. It still discusses the mission of Jesus. If you want to be a Christian, the blueprint is still there. The only reason why it might be meaningless is that you’re more interested in WORSHIPPING Jesus rather than FOLLOWING Jesus. And I’ll just say it, if you just want to worship him, then you’re wasting your and everyone else’s time.
Forgiveness of sins would be meaningless. So this is based on the assumption of Original Sin. Which isn’t in the Bible. This idea was promoted by St. Augustine in the 16th century. Sure, he’s a smart dude, but it’s a human interpretation based on the assumption that Adam and Even were real people. Aren’t we beyond that, now?
Present life would be joyless. Really? This (and the rest) seems more like a self-fulling prophecy or Begging the Question. This is a logical fallacy. Plenty of non-Christians find life full of joy.
Godly living would be fruitless. What does Godly living even mean? God killed lots of people, so I don’t think that’s it. Is it reading your Bible? Being charitable? I’m pretty sure atheists can do good works toward the kingdom of God without being Christian. Again, begging the question.
Future life would be worthless. This guy is a broken record. Again, why? Self-fulfilling prophecy? Is the “future” heaven or next week? This article doesn’t go into specifics though I assume heaven. But I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that his Resurrection was essential to gaining entrance into heaven. In fact, scholars debate what he meant by heaven: is it the magic place we tell our kids about, or just a new version of life on earth (read the Lord’s Prayer)?
This might just be me, but I believe Jesus wanted us to DO things for God and for people. Not just worship him. In fact, I can’t find a single verse where he says, “Worship me.” Believing in the Resurrection is a crutch for people thinking they’re doing the right thing, instead of DOING the right thing.
Everyone, especially Christians, should become “the resurrection so that Jesus lives on through our actions.”
From my church experiences, Easter and Christmas are great recruitment times. These stories excite people and can increase membership. But that shouldn’t be the end. Jesus wanted us to be The Good in the world. We should focus on that and use the Resurrection as a tool to do good.
