Why is it such a dealbreaker for most Christians [with regard to whether they consider someone to be a kindred spirit ~ a "cultural Christian", perhaps?] if that person simply doesn't believe that Jesus experienced a cessation of all biological functions as a result of being executed that lasted 72 hours followed by a reactivation of those biological functions? Aren't there much more important things about Jesus ~ especially about his teachings ~ than this totally unverifiable and seemingly take-it-or-leave-it story of "resurrection"?
@fmf saidIf the resurrection didn't really happen, really physically, and not merely metaphorically/spiritually/allegorically, then that blasts Christianity out of the water. The resurrection is the 'proof', if you will, that the teachings attributed to Jesus are divine in origin, the certification that they are Laws Of God With Capital Letters, backed up by eternal threats, and not merely man-made guidelines/policies which might be a good idea.
Why is it such a dealbreaker for most Christians [with regard to whether they consider someone to be a kindred spirit ~ a "cultural Christian", perhaps?] if that person simply doesn't believe that Jesus experienced a cessation of all biological functions as a result of being executed that lasted 72 hours followed by a reactivation of those biological functions? Aren't there much ...[text shortened]... eachings ~ than this totally unverifiable and seemingly take-it-or-leave-it story of "resurrection"?
If you subtract the resurrection from Christianity, you are not left with all the ethical bits intact ('thou shalt not kill' etc. etc.). What you are left with is an edifying myth on a level with every other edifying myth propagated throughout history (gilgamesh, Osiris, Prometheus, etc. etc.) which Christianity dismisses as false religion. So Christianity itself becomes false religion, by its own definition, if you subtract the bodily resurrection.
EDIT: The chap you should be reading is Don Cupitt
http://www.doncupitt.com/don-cupitt
Anglican priest who has written many books; you could start with "Taking Leave of God" wherein he makes a case for jettisoning all the unverifiable, superstitious, magical, bits from Christianity -- including, SPOILER ALERT, the existence of God.
@divegeester
See addition to my previous post: Don Cupitt's your man. He's been there, posed that question, answered it.
@divegeester
Cupitt is fine writer. Very clear. It is, to say the least, a distinctly odd position for a priest to take. Well, maybe not for an Anglican priest . . .
PS to your remark, what if the resurrection was made up but the healings were real:
If we're going to suppose that the resurrection bit was made up, why should anyone think that the healing bits were not also made up? If you take out the big magical bits, you start down a slippery slope where it is completely arbitrary to leave in other, lesser, magical bits (raising Lazerus, fulfilling prophecies left right and center, changing water into wine, healing the centurion's sick servant, etc. etc.).
-Removed-I think FMF is genuinely trying to find a way to salvage something of the Christian tradition for himself in an age which is not fertile ground for many of the presuppositions of Christian doctrine (authority-criterion of truth, for example), much less the magical details. He is not alone in this; many people in our technologized, materialistic, society have come adrift and suffer from pernicious doubts and/or a persistent sense of meaninglessness.
-Removed-Those who believe something impossible really happened, call it a "miracle"; those who believe it didn't really happen call it "magic", an illusion, a trick, sleight of hand, or something made up (for example, for dramatic effect). It's the same piece of glass, just depending on which side of it you're looking at.