"Unity Church": Are its beliefs persuasive?

[rakovsky]

Is the Unity Church's basis for believing in Jesus' major miracles persuasive?

A Unity Church minister told me that a major reason that he believes in Jesus' main miracles is his belief in psychic powers. For example, people have the ability to make predictions from dreams, heal severe illnesses unexpectedly, perform ESP or mind-reading, exercise clairvoyance, move objects, influence events through mental concentration alone, etc. So Jesus was likely able to perform his main miracles in this way. And unexpected, extreme miracles are possible, as in cases where people appear dead to experts for hours and then resuscitate.

My difficulty with this is that although I think that psychic abilities probably exist, they are much weaker among people than those required for the kind of resurrection the gospels say Jesus experienced. In the gospels, Jesus' body not only vanished from the tomb physically, but it transformed into a spiritual body that still displayed physical properties. For example, Jesus showed up in a locked room to physically eat with the disciples in Luke's and John's gospels. And besides that, the gospels say that He ascended into heaven after several weeks of such apparitions. These kinds of miracles go far beyond what psychics have generally been showed to do.

I understand that there are legends of Asian gurus performing extreme miracles, but I think that those are probably hoaxes and invented stories. My guess is that some people in the Unity Church exaggerate or misportray the strength of psychic powers, at least to the extent that people generally have attained them. Unlike one claim that I found, I don't think that just because a person is convinced absolutely that they will win a million dollars in the lottery, buys a ticket to do so, and meditates properly means that the person will actually win the lottery.

What do you think? Would the existence of psychic powers help to suggest that Jesus' main miracles were probably real?

[freetoroam]

What do you think? Would the existence of psychic powers help to suggest that Jesus' main miracles were probably real?

Extremely probably not.

[+and-then]

Is the Unity Church's basis for believing in Jesus' major miracles persuasive?

A Unity Church minister told me that a major reason that he believes in Jesus' main miracles is his belief in psychic powers. For example, people have the ability to make predictions from dreams, heal severe illnesses unexpectedly, perform ESP or mind-reading, exercise clairvoyance, move objects, influence events through mental concentration alone, etc. So Jesus was likely able to perform his main miracles in this way. And unexpected, extreme miracles are possible, as in cases where people appear dead to experts for hours and then resuscitate.

My difficulty with this is that although I think that psychic abilities probably exist, they are much weaker among people than those required for the kind of resurrection the gospels say Jesus experienced. In the gospels, Jesus' body not only vanished from the tomb physically, but it transformed into a spiritual body that still displayed physical properties. For example, Jesus showed up in a locked room to physically eat with the disciples in Luke's and John's gospels. And besides that, the gospels say that He ascended into heaven after several weeks of such apparitions. These kinds of miracles go far beyond what psychics have generally been showed to do.

I understand that there are legends of Asian gurus performing extreme miracles, but I think that those are probably hoaxes and invented stories. My guess is that some people in the Unity Church exaggerate or misportray the strength of psychic powers, at least to the extent that people generally have attained them. Unlike one claim that I found, I don't think that just because a person is convinced absolutely that they will win a million dollars in the lottery, buys a ticket to do so, and meditates properly means that the person will actually win the lottery.

What do you think? Would the existence of psychic powers help to suggest that Jesus' main miracles were probably real?

Since there are no photographs of him and no absolutely no physical proof that will satisfy his existence to those who deny him then it becomes a matter of faith. One either believe he is who he said he was or one denies it. The track you seem to be on is to somehow prove his existence through purely human abilities. I believe he is who he said he was. I believe he predicted his own return with signs that are plainly visible in the media daily and I believe there are going to be a LOT of very upset people around the world shortly when he returns to take his place as ruler. Note that - RULER. As in rod of iron. At that point it really isn't going to matter if a person still wants to deny. Fortunately for all of us his desire isn't to crush but to make this world what it was intended to be before we decided we could handle it on our own. We handled it alright... look around.

[eight bits]

Greetings, again, rakovsky.

First of all, for clarity, when you say "Unity Church," do you mean these folks?

http://www.unity.org/

This is a little strange, to be discussing the views of a church, which I take from your story is not your church, on the debate-restricted side of the religion boards. I would have thought you might prefer the more searching give-and-take that is only possible when fundamental assumptions can be disputed vigorously.

If we are talking about Unity (as at the above link), then we are delving into the entire New Thought movement, which is about 125 years old.

As to Jesus' miracles specifically, there are two remarkable things about them, IMO:

- the later the Gospel, the better the miracles, even when the "same event" is retold.

- Jesus performs no miracle in Mark, the earliest Gospel, that is so very different from what is attributed to his disciples and selected non-disciples in the New Testament (an unaffiliated exorcist in Mark, in Acts, Peter, a disciple; Paul, Philip, and Simon of Samaria, not disciples). In Mark, Jesus is plainly teaching his disciples "a course in miracles," so that they, too, can do signs and wonders.

You and I have already had some discussion of the after-death sightings of Jesus in an earlier thread. I won't repeat all of that here (at least not now). I'll content myself by observing,

Jesus showed up in a locked room to physically eat with the disciples in Luke's and John's gospels.

Well, Luke anyway. The locked room isn't possible in a matter-body, but both parts could possibly be experienced by witnesses who are properly prepared psychologically.

As to the last chapter of John, there was an interesting "eyewitness reliability" experiment written into the film, The Sixth Sense. I think we needn't worry more than 15 years along about the spoiler: the main adult character, played by Bruce Willis, is dead. The "test" is that despite the frequency and intensity of his interactions with people, he never actually moves any physical object. The character himself doesn't catch on that nothing moves when he tries to move it (an interior door is "stuck," for example). Most of the audience doesn't catch on, either.

I mention this because Jesus doesn't eat anything in John 21. There is a cooking fire onshore, but no mention of who set it. There is an "alternative institution" at verse 13, in which Jesus (usual translation) "takes" the bread (but John's actual word is lambanei - he receives), "gives" (no translation issue) it them, and likewise the fish.

Jesus does not eat, and there's no physical action by Jesus depicted there, nor elsewhere in the chapter.

[eight bits]

This paragraph of my last post was misleading:

Well, Luke anyway. The locked room isn't possible in a matter-body, but both parts could possibly be experienced by witnesses who are properly prepared psychologically.

Luke 24 has Jesus eating, after suddenly appearing in the midst of his disciples but without the detail of locked doors. John 20 has locked doors as well as the sudden appearance, but no eating. John 21 takes place in the open air, and there is no eating there, either.

Jesus eating is in Luke, not John; locked doors are in John, not Luke.

Edited July 12, 2015 by eight bits

[rakovsky]

Since there are no photographs of him and no absolutely no physical proof that will satisfy his existence to those who deny him then it becomes a matter of faith. One either believe he is who he said he was or one denies it. The track you seem to be on is to somehow prove his existence through purely human abilities. I believe he is who he said he was. I believe he predicted his own return with signs that are plainly visible in the media daily and I believe there are going to be a LOT of very upset people around the world shortly when he returns to take his place as ruler. Note that - RULER. As in rod of iron. At that point it really isn't going to matter if a person still wants to deny. Fortunately for all of us his desire isn't to crush but to make this world what it was intended to be before we decided we could handle it on our own. We handled it alright... look around.

Hello, And Then.

It looks like you are going off into the broader topic of reasons for thinking that Jesus' resurrection happened. I can invite you to discuss it on my thread:

Was Christ's Resurrection quite likely?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=280163

The photograph could be the Turin Shroud. And just because physical proof won't persuade those who take a particularly close-minded rejectionist position on Jesus doesn't mean that it won't also persuade open-minded people who lack an affirmative faith about His miracles. In terms of the available possible positions, one need not take a clearly either-or position on Jesus.

I would be very happy if Jesus returned shortly like you said. But people have been waiting thousands of years for that, even though it looks like people expected it already in the first century.

What are the signs of Jesus that are ongoing that you mentioned?

[rakovsky]

Greetings, again, rakovsky.

First of all, for clarity, when you say "Unity Church," do you mean these folks?

http://www.unity.org/

Yes.

This is a little strange, to be discussing the views of a church, which I take from your story is not your church, on the debate-restricted side of the religion boards. I would have thought you might prefer the more searching give-and-take that is only possible when fundamental assumptions can be disputed vigorously.

CAN I ASK THE MODERATORS TO MOVE IT?

If we are talking about Unity (as at the above link), then we are delving into the entire New Thought movement, which is about 125 years old.

As to Jesus' miracles specifically, there are two remarkable things about them, IMO:

- the later the Gospel, the better the miracles, even when the "same event" is retold.

- Jesus performs no miracle in Mark, the earliest Gospel, that is so very different from what is attributed to his disciples and selected non-disciples in the New Testament (an unaffiliated exorcist in Mark, in Acts, Peter, a disciple; Paul, Philip, and Simon of Samaria, not disciples). In Mark, Jesus is plainly teaching his disciples "a course in miracles," so that they, too, can do signs and wonders.

The intentionally, implicitly miraculous event of the empty tomb is narrated in all four gospels, including Mark's. Mark's ending (up to verse 16:9) has a youth telling the women at the empty tomb that Jesus will meet the apostles in Galilee, which does happen in Matthew, John 21, and probably the Gospel of Peter. It says Jesus is going there, suggesting that Jesus has an actual, traveling body after His resurrection.

I do think that in Mark's gospel there is less detail about miracles, but there's two reasons I think that are likely for this.

Mark has a shorter style. But I think that more importantly Mark relies more on suggesting and implying what it would consider the sacred Truth in his narration.

Christianity in the first or second centuries had at least two layers- the message in open evangelism and the rituals and learning that were acquired by catechumens through their catechesis. In the earlier services, the noninitiated weren't even allowed in the main hall for the Eucharist part of the service. Now, there was a practical reason for that- only Christians partake the liturgy. But nonetheless I think that probably the greater truths of Christianity were ideas that were learned within the community rather than totally spelled out clearly in the gospels.

I think that the Eucharist is a good example. Based on the gospels and other books in the Bible, one can correctly conclude that the early Christians saw Christ's body as being in some real sense in the Eucharist. But the Bible didn't spell it out so clearly as to avoid debate on it centuries later between Calvin and the more traditional Christians. I think it was really a "holy mystery" or ritual or concept that was just not spelled out in the synoptic gospels, because the synoptics were for a broader audience. The uninitiated might not have been able to handle some of the more intense christian beliefs like the virgin birth, just like they have trouble with them today.

However as the process of recording and writing down the Gospel story was performed in different books, Christian writings explicated more of these ideas. John's gospel is more explicit in these beliefs, which are more implicit in Mark.

This is my own view, but I think that it's probably correct as to why Mark doesn't lay out some of the more mystical beliefs in Christianity- virgin birth, divinity, the Eucharist - in a more explicit way or at all. Mark has a short style for a broad audience.

You and I have already had some discussion of the after-death sightings of Jesus in an earlier thread. I won't repeat all of that here (at least not now). I'll content myself by observing,

Well, Luke anyway. The locked room isn't possible in a matter-body, but both parts could possibly be experienced by witnesses who are properly prepared psychologically.

As to the last chapter of John, there was an interesting "eyewitness reliability" experiment written into the film, The Sixth Sense. I think we needn't worry more than 15 years along about the spoiler: the main adult character, played by Bruce Willis, is dead. The "test" is that despite the frequency and intensity of his interactions with people, he never actually moves any physical object. The character himself doesn't catch on that nothing moves when he tries to move it (an interior door is "stuck," for example). Most of the audience doesn't catch on, either.

I mention this because Jesus doesn't eat anything in John 21. There is a cooking fire onshore, but no mention of who set it. There is an "alternative institution" at verse 13, in which Jesus (usual translation) "takes" the bread (but John's actual word is lambanei - he receives), "gives" (no translation issue) it them, and likewise the fish.

Jesus does not eat, and there's no physical action by Jesus depicted there, nor elsewhere in the chapter.

OK. The issue is that all four gospels present it as if Jesus physically resurrected, because of the story of the empty tomb. Matthew, Luke, and John record physical appearances of Jesus to multiple witnesses. For example, in Matthew, the women hold Jesus' feet, which is a physical act. My guess is that Mark's original ending was broadly similar to John 21.

Mark's missing ending after 16:8 is very curious for me. Many Christian scholars think that the ending is missing and that Mark 16:9-20 was a later addition. Based on Mark 16:1-8, it sounds like in the missing ending, the women didn't give the apostles timely notice of his resurrection, implying that Jesus surprised them with an appearance someplace. And Mark 16:1-8 says Jesus would see them in Galilee. Peter's apocryphal Gospel (c. late 2nd century AD) has an ending that picks up about where Mark 16:1-8 leave off, and with Jesus meeting some apostles by the sea in Galilee. My guess is that Mark's ending was intentionally removed and lost because it, like the ending in Peter's apocryphal gospel, suggests a contradiction in chronology.

I understand your suggestion that maybe in reality Jesus was not physically present in the post-resurrection appearances. But my point is that the gospels present it as if he had a physical resurrection. In Luke 24, for example, Jesus says "Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see I have."

My purpose in this particular thread is to ask whether the existence of psychic powers would be a serious reason to believe in Jesus' main, extreme miracles.

[rakovsky]

This paragraph of my last post was misleading:

Luke 24 has Jesus eating, after suddenly appearing in the midst of his disciples but without the detail of locked doors. John 20 has locked doors as well as the sudden appearance, but no eating. John 21 takes place in the open air, and there is no eating there, either.

Jesus eating is in Luke, not John; locked doors are in John, not Luke.

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. In Luke 24, Jesus shows up and eats, and in John's retelling of the same event it doesn't mention Jesus eating, but does mention the doors being locked.

The issue with the doors being locked or not while he eats is really to clear up whether it was an immaterial apparition, a material human imposter, or actually Jesus. An apparition doesn't eat and an imposter doesn't walk through a locked door. In Luke's gospel through, Jesus eats, shows that he isn't a ghost, and then ascends, showing that he is Jesus in a transformed physical and spiritual body. This brings to mind how in ancient Jewish - and I think current Orthodox Jewish - thought, the dead would have a physical resurrection (eg. Isaiah 26: "Dead bodies arise!", describing the resurrection of holy people.). However, resurrecting the dead just for them to die again seems pointless to me, so it seems more likely that the Christian solution to that dilemma would be correct and the resurrected would be physical and spiritual.

Edited July 12, 2015 by rakovsky

[+and-then]

Hello, And Then.

It looks like you are going off into the broader topic of reasons for thinking that Jesus' resurrection happened. I can invite you to discuss it on my thread:

Was Christ's Resurrection quite likely?

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=280163

The photograph could be the Turin Shroud. And just because physical proof won't persuade those who take a particularly close-minded rejectionist position on Jesus doesn't mean that it won't also persuade open-minded people who lack an affirmative faith about His miracles. In terms of the available possible positions, one need not take a clearly either-or position on Jesus.

I would be very happy if Jesus returned shortly like you said. But people have been waiting thousands of years for that, even though it looks like people expected it already in the first century.

What are the signs of Jesus that are ongoing that you mentioned?

The primary aspect of the signs that set them apart from the historical presence of wars, rumors of war, famines, pestilences and earthquakes is the convergence and increased tempo of those signs. But all that can of course be rejected by the idea that we simply are more aware of them today. The one sign that is very modern and is not to be credibly rejected is the last sign: Matthew 24:14 -And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. This has never - in fact never COULD have happened - before this generation of humanity. Another sign that was not mentioned specifically by Christ but was of the older, major prophets was Ezekiel's look into the last days and the wars Israel would endure. The nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38/39 are easily identified today as Turkey (and possibly Russia as well as Iran and most of the North African countries - all of which are Islamic today. My point wasn't meant to start an argument with anyone. I just believe these events are very close now and it troubles me to know that most simply WILL NOT even consider the possibility that this book has foretold them.

[rakovsky]

The primary aspect of the signs that set them apart from the historical presence of wars, rumors of war, famines, pestilences and earthquakes is the convergence and increased tempo of those signs. But all that can of course be rejected by the idea that we simply are more aware of them today. The one sign that is very modern and is not to be credibly rejected is the last sign: Matthew 24:14 -And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. This has never - in fact never COULD have happened - before this generation of humanity. Another sign that was not mentioned specifically by Christ but was of the older, major prophets was Ezekiel's look into the last days and the wars Israel would endure. The nations mentioned in Ezekiel 38/39 are easily identified today as Turkey (and possibly Russia as well as Iran and most of the North African countries - all of which are Islamic today. My point wasn't meant to start an argument with anyone. I just believe these events are very close now and it troubles me to know that most simply WILL NOT even consider the possibility that this book has foretold them.

Hello, And Then.

I recommend discussing the signs you mention on the broader thread about whether Jesus' resurrection happened.

Back in the 1st century, people thought of the world as being the regions surrounding the Roman empire, and so when for example Thomas went to India allegedly, the 1st century New Testament writers could have considered the prophecy of preaching to the ends of the world fulfilled and were waiting for the end.

Then in the 15th-18th centuries the New World was mapped out and missionaries were sent all over the world, so for the last 200 years the preaching prophecy you mentioned has long been fulfilled. End Times groups have constantly been predicting the apocalypse, but it hasn't happened already. So my sense is that it won't soon.

I think it's problematic to see Ezekiel 38, which talks about God's people the ancient Israelites fighting Ethiopia and Armenia (Magog), as describing the modern political situation, in which the Israeli government is nonreligious, definitively nonChristian and has been allied with Ethiopia.for a long time.

In the Christian era, Ezekiel 38 has normally been thought to be a poetic, metaphorical prophecy of the battle between those Christians whom label God's "true Israel", the Church, with their opponents. That is, Christians normally haven't understood it as a modern Israeli political battle but as a battle against the Church.

See the Geneva Study Bible's commentary here, for example:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/geneva-study-bible/ezekiel/ezekiel-38.html

The Geneva Study Bible is one of the foundational Study Bibles in Protestantism.

Edited July 12, 2015 by rakovsky

[+and-then]

Hello, And Then.

I recommend discussing the signs you mention on the broader thread about whether Jesus' resurrection happened.

Back in the 1st century, people thought of the world as being the regions surrounding the Roman empire, and so when for example Thomas went to India allegedly, the 1st century New Testament writers could have considered the prophecy of preaching to the ends of the world fulfilled and were waiting for the end.

Then in the 15th-18th centuries the New World was mapped out and missionaries were sent all over the world, so for the last 200 years the preaching prophecy you mentioned has long been fulfilled. End Times groups have constantly been predicting the apocalypse, but it hasn't happened already. So my sense is that it won't soon.

Then you also should be familiar with the prediction that in the last days scoffers would abound saying where is the promise of his coming? I don't pretend to know when he will return to the world but I do believe it will happen and if it isn't prior to my physical death then I will see him then Peace

[eight bits]

rakovsky

(To request a move: just "report" your post, and explain that you'd like the thread moved, whatever mod sees the request will take a look, and there's a good chance that he or she will just do it.)

I looked at some of the Unity materials. They seem relatively harmless (except maybe if prayer is substituted for healthcare, which often works out poorly, but I am unsure of their views there). I think the Marcan level of miracles is pretty typical of a tzedek, so yes, I think that would explain the reports - spiritually spun interpretations of natural events. I think the Unity people could "experience miracles" at that level and for that actual reason.

But I think that more importantly Mark relies more on suggesting and implying what it would consider the sacred Truth in his narration.

Well, I think that Mark wants Jesus do the things the disciples to establish their teaching lineage, and to move their secular magic into the religious sphere.

why Mark doesn't lay out some of the more mystical beliefs in Christianity

I suspect that the reason is that most of your list hadn't been invented yet. No Jew thinks any man is God. It's part of what being a Jew means, and had meant for centuries before Christianity. Bread, wine, fish and washing rituals? Sure, no problem, no mystery. Also, ancient people knew perfectly well where babies come from.

The issue with the doors being locked or not while he eats is really to clear up whether it was an immaterial apparition, a material human imposter, or actually Jesus.

The difficulty is that including such things is a trope in ghost stories. Pliny's letter to Sura has a remarkably physical spectre. That's contemporary with the Gospels. The shades in The Odyssey can drink material liquid, and that's the oldest written ghost story in the Western tradition. And of course, if I can see a ghost at all (as the assembled disciples initially think they are, Luke 24: 37) then I can see a ghost eat, drink, play the harpsichord, whatever.

If that was Luke's intention, then it was ineffective. I suspect that part of the actual situation is that we are imposing a modern sensibility on an ancient text, and that even at the end of the Gospel period, people were still trying to understand what Jesus' "body" was supposed to be like. Paul couldn't have been more vague.

An apparition doesn't eat and an imposter doesn't walk through a locked door

As I mentioned, the shades in The Odyssey drink, and it would seem to me that being non-physical would be a big help in getting through those locked doors. I think John wanted his perma-Jesus to be not especially physical, reflecting an upmarket readership who thought having flesh was gross (although it can be great fun sometimes), but being numinous is divine. Speaking of whom, the gods also eat and drink, and their physicality was at best vague.

...and then ascends...

Speaking of things that being non-physical would help with.

However, resurrecting the dead just for them to die again seems pointless to me.

Really? I wouldn't find an additional fifty years pointless. Particularly if I could fly, walk through locked doors, be recognized or not as I saw fit... even more is better, but a hell of a lot is still good.

[rakovsky]

Then you also should be familiar with the prediction that in the last days scoffers would abound saying where is the promise of his coming? I don't pretend to know when he will return to the world but I do believe it will happen and if it isn't prior to my physical death then I will see him then Peace

Hello, And Again.

My suggestion to you is to continue your discussion on apocalyptic signs on the thread I pointed to, rather than this one.

In the passage you quoted, Peter says:

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,

4and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."

5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,…

In this passage, the scoffers are suggesting that the promise of Jesus' coming is not here, and are scoffing at the promise.

I and traditional Christians are not scoffing at the promise of Jesus' future return. Rather, I am highly questioning some people's claims that it will be here soon, as in a few decades. Even Jesus said that He did not know exactly when the End would come, but that only the Father knows.

[rakovsky]

(about Mark not mentioning mystery doctrines like the virgin birth)

I suspect that the reason is that most of your list hadn't been invented yet. No Jew thinks any man is God. It's part of what being a Jew means, and had meant for centuries before Christianity. Bread, wine, fish and washing rituals? Sure, no problem, no mystery. Also, ancient people knew perfectly well where babies come from.

First, you have just given good reasons for why Mark and Paul would not spell out fully to a broad audience the deeper mysteries and rites of their sect, namely the Virgin Birth and Eucharist, with all that the latter meant. The outer world would not understand them. And in fact the pagan Romans criticized the Christians for the Eucharist.

But we do know from Paul's letters that the Eucharistic rite was already in existence in the apostles' time. It was just not something that nonChristians were participants of. The Eucharist is not really occult, it's just not one of the main things that Paul and Mark put out explicitly and in detail to a broad audience.

The same thing is true of Jesus' divinity, which can be found implicitly in Mark, as when people worship and believe in Jesus. Worship and belief was not something that the Bible sees fit for other ancient righteous. It does not ask us to worship or "believe in" Moses or Abraham.

Paul says that Jesus was God who manifested in the form of a Servant (Phillippians 2), but Mark doesn't get as explicit and clear and John does. I am not sure why John doesn't record the virgin birth, though, since he is clear about Jesus being God (eg. Thomas' words "my God" in John 20).

The difficulty is that including such things is a trope in ghost stories. Pliny's letter to Sura has a remarkably physical spectre. That's contemporary with the Gospels. The shades in The Odyssey can drink material liquid, and that's the oldest written ghost story in the Western tradition. And of course, if I can see a ghost at all (as the assembled disciples initially think they are, Luke 24: 37) then I can see a ghost eat, drink, play the harpsichord, whatever.

If that was Luke's intention, then it was ineffective. I suspect that part of the actual situation is that we are imposing a modern sensibility on an ancient text, and that even at the end of the Gospel period, people were still trying to understand what Jesus' "body" was supposed to be like. Paul couldn't have been more vague.

That's a good point about the Odyssey. Are you sure that the shades drank a physical liquid?

In any case, I don't know why you think Luke was ineffective in portraying a physical appearance of Jesus, since the Church's orthodox position continued in his wake to be that Jesus had a physical resurrection.

As I mentioned, the shades in The Odyssey drink, and it would seem to me that being non-physical would be a big help in getting through those locked doors.

Being nonphysical would help, but it's not necessary. Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 that the dead now have an incorruptible, immortal, heavenly body. God and the angels are not restricted by physically locked doors.

And what else is the point of Luke describing the empty tomb but to point to a physical resurrection?

I think John wanted his perma-Jesus to be not especially physical, reflecting an upmarket readership who thought having flesh was gross (although it can be great fun sometimes), but being numinous is divine. Speaking of whom, the gods also eat and drink, and their physicality was at best vague.

John's gospel has the empty tomb story too.

Really? I wouldn't find an additional fifty years pointless. Particularly if I could fly, walk through locked doors, be recognized or not as I saw fit... even more is better, but a hell of a lot is still good.

If they could do those things, it would reflect a magical new condition, and whether the new form would die naturally would be doubtful.

[docyabut2]

Is the Unity Church's basis for believing in Jesus' major miracles persuasive?

A Unity Church minister told me that a major reason that he believes in Jesus' main miracles is his belief in psychic powers. For example, people have the ability to make predictions from dreams, heal severe illnesses unexpectedly, perform ESP or mind-reading, exercise clairvoyance, move objects, influence events through mental concentration alone, etc. So Jesus was likely able to perform his main miracles in this way. And unexpected, extreme miracles are possible, as in cases where people appear dead to experts for hours and then resuscitate.

My difficulty with this is that although I think that psychic abilities probably exist, they are much weaker among people than those required for the kind of resurrection the gospels say Jesus experienced. In the gospels, Jesus' body not only vanished from the tomb physically, but it transformed into a spiritual body that still displayed physical properties. For example, Jesus showed up in a locked room to physically eat with the disciples in Luke's and John's gospels. And besides that, the gospels say that He ascended into heaven after several weeks of such apparitions. These kinds of miracles go far beyond what psychics have generally been showed to do.

I understand that there are legends of Asian gurus performing extreme miracles, but I think that those are probably hoaxes and invented stories. My guess is that some people in the Unity Church exaggerate or misportray the strength of psychic powers, at least to the extent that people generally have attained them. Unlike one claim that I found, I don't think that just because a person is convinced absolutely that they will win a million dollars in the lottery, buys a ticket to do so, and meditates properly means that the person will actually win the lottery.

What do you think? Would the existence of psychic powers help to suggest that Jesus' main miracles were probably real?

I am a unity student and I believe it was what Jesus had said the healing belief in one,s self. Like he had said to the little boy that walked, it was not I that heal you but your belief in me that heal you.( because you believe me).To me that's what Jesus psychic powers were. That was the unity belief of the Fillmore's

Edited July 12, 2015 by docyabut2

[rakovsky]

Interesting claim:

"Arguably, Jesus selected these three particular disciples because each of them possessed mediumistic gifts"

Moses and Jesus: The Shamans, By Jackie Jones-Hunt

https://books.google.com/books?id=WAHtBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT259&lpg=PT259&dq=psychic+crucifixion+jesus&source=bl&ots=e98XUwkto1&sig=cmd7jVGiv1girokhYsQ2smy83qg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fwKjVYWFE8ar-AGci4HwAQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=psychic%20crucifixion%20jesus&f=false

The author uses this to explain the apostles' sightings of Moses and Elijah on the Mount with Jesus and of Jesus Himself after His resurrection.

Granted, this doesn't explain the empty tomb phenomenon.

[docyabut2]

My parents were students, I`m 72 years old and was unity student all my life, a unity minister Wallace Tooke baptized me at a young age, married me and before he died wrote a book( Hi Katy), about a member. In the book he claimed when he came from preceding over her funeral and went out to cut the grass she came though his mind and told him of the other side. When my dad died the night before he said he was talking to him. I`m really a skeptic and don't know what to believe.

[rakovsky]

I am a unity student and I believe it was what Jesus had said the healing belief in one,s self. Like he had said to the little boy that walked, it was not I that heal you but your belief in me that heal you.( because you believe me).To me that's what Jesus psychic powers were. That was the unity belief of the Fillmore's

Hi Docya. My main question in this thread is whether the possibility of psychic powers proves that Jesus could have resurrected and Ascended.

As to your particular response, where exactly did Jesus say "It was not I that heal you"? At least in the gospel it's not really just the boy's belief in himself healing, but his belief in Jesus that healed him. Jesus says in the gospel "Apart from me you can do nothing at all".

[rakovsky]

My parents were students, I`m 72 years old and was unity student all my life, a unity minister Wallace Tooke baptized me at a young age, married me and before he died wrote a book( Hi Katy), about a member. In the book he claimed when he came from preceding over her funeral and went out to cut the grass she came though his mind and told him of the other side. When my dad died the night before he said he was talking to him.

What do you mean?

[docyabut2]

In all of this I do believe Jesus did survive for a few days and in all his messages of comfort to people, that comfort did survived.

[Galahad]

I will put my faith in a spiritual ressurection. Miricles mean nothing to me..there not nessesary for my belief. A type of generation seeks a sign...

Only some supernatural cloud flying monkey magic that has long decomposed body's hands bursting from there graves like something out of the living dead will satisfy them...does anybody know what Jesus looked like? Why would the spirit of Jesus have to use his old body? Did Elijah when he returned not come through John?

These are fundamental errors in theology that even the first Israel didn't make! They would have accepted John if he said " yes I'm a prophet, yes I'm Elijah! And what's more Jesus is the Messiah, I was told that!"

Christianity is doomed..even Jesus will say to them "depart I never knew you"..

Keep watching the clouds, look for signs ..seek a sign..

Learn the parable of the fig tree as it clearly states that is when he is at the very gates! That was 1948.. (2000 years for the end of the 2nd testament age)

OK, I know you expect " this same Jesus" but if you don't understand spirit world then its easy to take it literal..just as John was Elijah..Jesus was a mission not a MAN. Go on seeking signs and wonders, or get on the current timeline but you must become a new wineskin..( christianity cant even figure out what happened 2000 years ago..how can they know whats happening today?) ..and a very rocky road awaites..will you loose everything for God? Everything! Be hungry and often homeless , Fox's have holes...will you curse God to his face when your alone, hungry and cold, when your greatest enemies are in your own house? ( all those are said for those in the final day)..no, enjoy your nice job, house, car and family and friends.. You don't want this path really, do you? It turns bitter in the stomach..

Let those who have a eye see!

Let those who have a ear hear!

Edited July 13, 2015 by Galahad

[eight bits]

rakovsky

First, you have just given good reasons for why Mark and Paul would not spell out fully to a broad audience the deeper mysteries and rites of their sect, namely the Virgin Birth and Eucharist, with all that the latter meant. The outer world would not understand them. And in fact the pagan Romans criticized the Christians for the Eucharist.

Apparently, some Romans did misunderstand the eucharist. The issue is "between the lines" of Pliny's letter to Trajan, where Pliny especially mentions the innocent food he discovered that the Christians eat. That is as opposed to cannibalism, an interpretation of the eucharist that is still remarked upon.

I see no evidence that anybody taught a virgin birth before Matthew. It is not a Jewish miracle schema, and he is alone among the evangelists in denying Mary sexual intercourse before Jesus' birth. Luke addresses the issue by having Mary speak with an angel and assert that she hadn't had yet sex at that time. This is directly contrasted with a typical Jewish miracle schema, a first child born to a post-menopausal woman, Mary's kinswoman.

There's nothing in the conversation that ensues about young Mary already being pregnant, nor that she shouldn't have sex soon to get pregnant. She is betrothed, which was a status that required a divorce to end; she could be sexually active with cultural acceptance.

But we do know from Paul's letters that the Eucharistic rite was already in existence in the apostles' time. It was just not something that nonChristians were participants of.

Yes, Paul wrote of the rite being practiced, but without pertinent interpretation. There is no evidence of exclusivity of attendance that early, nor evidence of uniformity of practice between Paul's churches and others. On the contrary, 1 Clement seems to complain of the independence of Paul's Corinthian church decades later.

Paul speaks directly of the impression the meetings might have on non-believing visitors (1 Corinthians 14:23). Pliny, two generations later, finds closed meetings. Something has changed over those decades. It does appear that Christianity entered into a "mystery religion" phase, with distinct esoteric and exoteric sectors, but that might easily have taken hold after Paul's death, when Jesus was first indisputably running late.

Paul says that Jesus was God who manifested in the form of a Servant (Phillippians 2), ...

No, that isn't what Paul says in that passage. He says Jesus was in the form of God. Please read Genesis 1:26-27 for the meaning of being in the form of God. It means Jesus is a man.

In Paul's theory of magic, Jesus completes the great work that Adam failed to, by adopting a magical strategy ooposite to Adam's: no grasping, obedience to God, acceptance of the death penalty and subsequent gibbeting, etc. Only after all that is Jesus deputized to exercise some of God's glory (as in the Eastern Orthodox theory of theosis for ordinary people, still taught).

Paul is consistent: what you are now, Jesus once was. What Jesus is now, you shall be soon. That's Paul's Christianity for Gentile audiences in a nutshell.

Are you sure that the shades drank a physical liquid?

Yup, and Odysseus guards the blood physically so the shades don't just take it. The physical-spirtual distinction obviously was understood differently in ancient times than today. The gods, too, are vulnerable. Odysseus pulls a sword on Circe, a goddess, and Venus, a major goddess, is wounded in earthly battle in the much later but still ancient Aeneid.

In any case, I don't know why you think Luke was ineffective in portraying a physical appearance of Jesus, since the Church's orthodox position continued in his wake to be that Jesus had a physical resurrection.

"Orthodoxy" refers to the Fourth Century and later. The orthodox position was that Jesus' mother had had a physical resurrection (or never died) and ascension (called assumption in her case). Luke's position on both Marian issues, virgin birth and her assumption into heaven, is the same: the book neither confirms nor denies it.

And what else is the point of Luke describing the empty tomb but to point to a physical resurrection?

I don't know. What is the point of Luke awarding the first sighting to Peter (24:34), but having that supposedly momentous event occur offstage? What is the point of the Emmaus-road disciples telling Jesus (whom they can see, but not identify) that nobody saw Jesus? What about Peter? Why does Jesus simply disappear (24:31) and reappear (24:36) if the author's purpose is to establish that he is physical?

"The tomb" being empty means the disciples lost track of the corpse. Luke follows Mark in having humans (two men, andres, in the later version, one man in the earlier) explain things to the women. Anything else you read into that is on you, not on Luke.

John's gospel has the empty tomb story too.

There is no "empty tomb story." There are four stories, each of which is set at a tomb. John's includes a naturalistic explanation of why the tomb is empty, which is ever denied. Matthew never has any human actually check inside the tomb, although they are invited to do so by an angel, a spirit-being, who rolls back the stone in front of human witnesses.... speaking of physical action without a physical body.

If they could do those things, it would reflect a magical new condition, and whether the new form would die naturally would be doubtful.

Really? Please give an example of something complex that lives and does not die. All sorts of organisms have radically "new" forms during the course of their life cycle. Butterflies can fly; their earlier caterpillar forms cannot. No magic there. Those new forms all die eventually, pending your presentation of a counterexample.

Edited July 13, 2015 by eight bits

[Just_Seeking]

I see the power in spoken words and repetitive thought happen a lot. For instance a felon that thinks and says all day the he is a felon and is going nowhere and will never go anywhere usually follows in his thoughts and words. As oppose to the ones that say and think the opposite.

So yes if you have faith the size of mustard seed you can move your metaphorical mountain out of the way. Jesus was ahead of his time.

[Just_Seeking]

No such thing as magic. Maybe not but I want my kids to believe in the unbelievable I hope they soar to great heights. The world is a rough place I do not want to take the unbelievable away from anyone nor do I wish anyone would grow up and loose their innocence. Or have it sucked out of them by anyone.

[Grandpa Greenman]

My main question in this thread is whether the possibility of psychic powers proves that Jesus could have resurrected and Ascended.

Does the possibility of psychic powers prove Merlin magically made Uther Pendragon appear as Lady Igraine's husband to father King Arthur? When you think about it is essentially the same question. Logically it is a false cause. What would the existence of psychic powers have to do with whether Jesus resurrected or Ascended or if he was even a real person? If psychic powers aren't real would that make the whole Jesus story nonsense? Now, I fear we have a conundrum.