I Hope So
by Preston Foster
By Preston Foster, October 2, 2013
“I hope so” sounds like minimalist optimism. It is the sighing mantra of a pessimist struggling to be optimistic. Rarely, if ever, does the phrase inspire the confidence of the hearer. “I hope so” sounds like a politician (or a parent, for that matter) trying not to make a commitment, while leaving room to manage disappointment. Interpreted this way, hope depends as much on luck as on faith. This form of hope usually accompanies nearly-exhausted faith.
My personal flavor of self-righteousness led me into this nagging problem with the notion of “hope.” My judgmental reflexes caused me to (wrongly) interpret “hope” as a weaker, less-developed form of faith. If my faith were sufficient, I thought, I would have climbed past hope to the more demanding levels of confidence and expectation. I conceived hope as the embryonic stage of faith. Why are we encouraged to be hopeful if hope is so underdeveloped?
My dad has an answer for such conundrums. “Just keep on living,” he says, implying that the answer will reveal itself (to the discerning) in time.
It has.
"For I know the plans I have for you," says the Lord. "They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope" (Jeremiah 29:11, NLT).
I simply had it backward. Hope doesn’t precede faith. Hope is a product of faith (Titus 3:7). Hope is faith with direction and intentionality. It is a directed optimism, based on a specific belief.
For believers, faith enables patience, which builds character and produces hope (Romans 5:2-5). Hope allows believers to live—happily—in the midst of what is, at times, a present and despairing reality. Our faith is in Christ. This gives us hope.
Just what does that mean? Just how far does that hope extend?
For many of us, hope is put to the test at funerals. Our beliefs or doubts are revealed when we, in real time, contemplate what is next for our lost loved one—and, eventually, for ourselves. Do we believe in resurrection as it is outlined in the Bible (1 Thessalonians 4, John 11:25, Acts 26:8, 1 Corinthians 9:1, Revelation 20:4-6)? How confident are we that we will one day see our loved ones and live eternally with God? Do we (Christian believers) believe the Bible literally on this issue, or is there a postmodern construct that dilutes this hope (1 Corinthians 15:17)?
I believe that the Bible is true. Ultimately. I believe that, if I die, I will be resurrected and live eternally with God.
I certainly hope so.
I fear that the "hope" expressed at funerals is often much closer to the minimalist optimism you described than the kind of hope that infuses and empowers living. That watered-down, smell-instead-of-substance modern concept of hope falls quite short of what the Bible writers had in mind when they spoke of it. Their hope had substance. It was empowering. It infused every aspect of their lives. It was knowledge of an unseen reality in which they had utter confidence because of their current, dynamic and empowered relationship with God. That is the "hope" to which God calls us.
I believe you are right, William. The confident, assertive hope demonstrated by the apostles and by those who now believe can and will change lives for the better. They produce the Spirit's fruit.
I am poking at, depending on your point of view, either a very basic or, perhaps, one of the most advanced evidences of Christian faith. Do you (readers) believe in both spiritual and physical resurrection — specifically of Christ and, at His Second Coming, of the righteous dead? Do cultural Adventists of every stripe believe in the resurrection, as described by the Bible in the verses referenced? If not, what is believed, if anything? Do we share this hope?
Hope is dependent on insecurity. One does not need hope that the sun will shine tomorrow, that the earth will not disappear, that he will live until he doesn't. To hope is expressing a deep belief, but wihout evidence. Millions of Christians believe in resurrection; they hope that if they or their loved ones die, they will be resurrected, but it is not based on evidence; which is why it is called "The Christian hope."
And it does not depend on how many hope for it to be realized.
Elaine: ‘Millions of Christians believe in resurrection; they hope that if they or their loved ones die, they will be resurrected, but it is not based on evidence; which is why it is called "The Christian hope." And it does not depend on how many hope for it to be realized.’
There is evidence of a sort for the Resurrection – but agreed it is only subjective evidence – it isn’t the sort of absolute objective evidence that would satisfy a scientist. But so what? What’s wrong with that?
The Resurrection was never intended to stand for scientific proof – it indeed stands for hope. And I enjoy Preston’s discussion on the interaction between hope and faith, and the notion that hope is not a sign of a lack of faith but a product of faith.
As for scientific proofs, there are plenty of things modern atheistic scientists have ‘faith’ in, but of which they have scant if any evidence. Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking, two of the biggest atheist scientists around, seem to have faith or hope in quantum physics, parallel universes, time-travel, aliens and the holographic principle, demonstrating rationalist presumptions against the Resurrection and miracles far too limited. Likewise, if supernatural literally means, ‘Not able to be explained by the laws of nature,’ then scientific orthodoxy gives strong weight to the possibility of supernatural events, given the Big Bang and black holes occur where time-space and laws of physics cease.
Moreover, we should remember in Jesus Christ’s case, we are not talking about the Resurrection of a mere man. Instead, we are talking about the Resurrection of the Divine. What comparison – either for or against – can one then make in history about that? Karl Barth rightly said the Resurrection cannot be compared or tested with historical-critical tools (used by modern liberal theologians), for the precise reason it was a wholly unique event in history.
Similarly, scientists think the universe will either be crushed or expand to nothingness in a few billion years, but what historical comparison can they make to an event that has never happened before? At best, they can only make predictions, often based upon imperfect subjective evidence, and have faith or hope in something happening.
In any event, the Resurrection as a story, even as a ‘myth’, is clearly something that resonates with the human condition, with the God-shaped hole of humanity. Thus, whilst its objective reality is not determined by votes, as you rightly say, the fact some 2.2 billion people seem to believe in it, demonstrates it is a story with an underlying truth. Even if only subjective truth, that still makes the Resurrection story ‘true’ in a way say Richard Dawkin’s Flying Spaghetti Monster could never be.
You may be happy to live without hope in an afterlife, and good for you if that is the case. However, for most of us, we share Dostoevsky’s thoughts when he said, ‘To live without hope is to cease to live.’ Hope in the Resurrection makes this life worth living.
Elaine,
Agreed.
The number of us who believe does not affect the probability of the believed event occuring — particularly in this case. My question is are there those of us, in this corner of the vineyard, who, now, interpret the Bible differently — on THIS issue? Are there, now, cultural Adventists who, for whatever reason, no longer share this hope? I am trying to understand the limits of this cultural identity. In short, how common is the common ground of faith among those who share this cultural and spiritual identification?
That is an important question, isn't it? But as a non-member, I will leave that to practicing Adventists for their evaluation where they live.
Elaine, as a Christian (who hangs around Adventists), is the resurrection real, an allegory, and unknown, or something else?
Preston: ‘Are there, now, cultural Adventists who, for whatever reason, no longer share this hope [in the Resurrection]? I am trying to understand the limits of this cultural identity. In short, how common is the common ground of faith among those who share this cultural and spiritual identification?’
Great questions Preston – really awesome! The ‘Adventist’ in our name obviously stands for the ‘Advent’, which is to say the Resurrection event itself at the Second Advent, as long ago attested in hope by Martha (see John 11:24). So this question of the Resurrection does indeed go to the heart of Adventist identity.
However, I think it is wider. I was recently shocked to discover (perhaps in my youthful nativity, which many of you will no doubt already have long been aware) that a large number of ‘professional’ theologians across Christendom of all denominations have for some time no longer believed in the Resurrection. I wonder, can anyone, of any denomination, really claim to call themselves a ‘Christian’, let alone an Adventist, if they deny the Resurrection of Jesus? What would be left – a parson’s robe, bloated bureaucracy and empty rituals of a really boring social club?
Without attempting to steal anyone’s thunder, some might find interesting the following statements from the following famous ‘professional’ theologians who deny the Resurrection:
‘‘It is impossible to use the electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.’ (Rudolf Bultmann, Lutheran)
‘Does that mean that it's a physical resuscitated body that gets up and walks out of the tomb …I don't know anybody that thinks that the appearance of the risen Christ to Jesus, I mean to Paul was a physical resuscitated body… So I'm not concerned about empty tombs or any of what I call secondary late developing evidence for the resurrection.’ (John Shelby Spong, Anglican)
‘…it is obvious that the resurrection of Jesus neither can be nor intends to be a historical event…We miss the meaning of resurrection in general and also of the resurrection of Jesus to begin with if our original preconception is the notion of a resuscitation of a physical, material body.’ (Karl Rahner, Roman Catholic)
‘The writings in the New Testament were not written by eyewitnesses of an overpowering divine appearance in the midst of human history…the Christian Bible turns out to be a masterpiece of invention…To be quite frank about it, the Bible is the product of very energetic and successful mythmaking on the part of those early Christians.’ (Burton L. Mack, Methodist)
No doubt ex-Adventists like Elaine and current-Adventists like Dr Taylor probably share these views. As to whether any ‘serious’ or ‘professional’ SDA theologians do, I am not sure but would be very interested to learn if there really were any. To a layman such as myself, rejecting the Resurrection of Christ seems to be a mere re-invention of the ancient Sadducee’s skepticism (see Mark 12:18,24,27), as well as make the proclamation of the Gospel (literally the good news of Jesus’ Resurrection) in vain (see 1 Cor 15:14).
Thanks, Stephen.
Light cannot be stolen. Let it shine.
I like learn much from post-modernists, religious liberals, and others who have fresh insights on religion and faith. However, as you have pointed out, faith in the resurrection is the fulcrum of Christianity.
I have no doubt that there are many on this site that no longer share that belief. I am trying to understand how they maintain a Christian identity while releasing the great hope. Is it because the Christian philosophy resonates with them, but, now, belief is now a bridge too far? Or, in the C.S. Lewis model, how can one respect the philosophy of someone (e.g., Christ) who is, by definition of the doubter, a narrcisstic fraud? It shouldn't the cognitive dissonance be overwhelming?
Preston: 'I am trying to understand how they maintain a Christian identity while releasing the great hope.'
Same here. Reading the NT, it seems the Gospel, which literally means the 'good news', is the good news that Jesus is not dead but risen from the grave! NT Wright (Anglican bishop who shares the SDA view on the state of the dead, and most popular defender of the Resurrection) makes clear that Christianity is to its core a 'Resurrection Movement.' How one maintains a Christian and Adventist identity whilst rejecting the central tennet of Christianity, which you rightly say is the religion's fulcrrum, is simply baffling to me.
Maybe they just like their friends at Church, like the songs, and like the pot luck lunches?
Preston: 'Is it because the Christian philosophy resonates with them…'
I guess that raises an interesting question – what is 'Christian philosophy'. The history of Christianity, as found in the NT itself, shows a tension between two broad 'philosophies':
It seems to me that most who reject the Resurrection still claim to be 'Christian' by claiming adherence to Jesus' ethical teacings. But is that enough? To be honest, I don't think Jesus' ethical teachings are that new or raddical, but found in many other religions. Jesus' teachings are not even distinct from Judaism, because everything he taught was arguably an expounding of the Torah, and parallels with the ethical teachings of much of the Pharisees.
We've missed you Preston, welcome back. To me, HOPE, is the sustaining power the Holy Spirit provides, which leads us into the Kingdom of God. God, the Holy Spirit is our daily Comforting Counseler, His power manifested in us in overcoming self.
Thanks, Earl. I've missed being in the mix, here.
The Holy Spirit enables hope, as you describe. But to what end? Is He helping us to be better people . . . and that's it? Or will the Resurrected Christ resurrect us, perfect us, and take us to heaven to live with him?
Is this not the original Fundamental Belief?
Preston,
Hope… is a fundamental belief of the Bible. Romans 15:4.13 It enables us to see beyond the mundane, ever increasing issues of life in this world. It gives us something to actually look forward to. If we truly understand / believe what the Bible says about hope… we would never say "I hope so." Some additonal texts speaking to God's plan in which He gives us hope realized by faith:
Romans 8:18-25; Colossians 1:3-5.24.25; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; 2 Thess 2:16.17; Titus 3:5-7; Hebrews 6:18.19; 1 Peter 1:3-9; 3:15; 1 John 3:1-3
laffal,
Thanks for these references, My Friend. 1 Thessalonians 5:8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 speak to me, in particular. But 1 Peter 1:3-9 makes the point explicitly:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls."
Preston,
I believe that is the point… "the hope of the gospel." Colossians 1:23
You are welcome My Friend.
Preston,
I disagree about hope being a fundamental belief. Rather, it is the result of belief, the most basic, essential, potent and transformative of them all being that God exists and He loves us enough to redeem us. Without encounters with God giving us reason to embrace such belief we have little cause for hope. With them we have every reason for hope.
William,
I should have been more clear. I was referring to "the blessed hope" of resurrection (belief in the belief in the resurrection of Christ, and, eventually, of the righteous dead at His coming. It seems to me that belief in Christ's resurrection and in ours (should we die) is fundamental to Christianity — as a faith.
Again, of what use is our earthly transformation if Christ is not risen (1 Corinthians 15:17)?
Preston, Jesus the Creator God who made man in His eternal image, gave us the game plan for life by His earthly example. He said He would go away but would return and resurrect His creation, that He would be the first resurrected, but then He would resurrect all who believe His message, that He would never leave us nor forsake us, that where He is we will be with Him. That our resurrected body would be like His glorious body. There was a straight forward example given about "flesh/spirit". Flesh is earthly, Spirit is otherworldly and everlasting/eternal.
There is everything about the Spirit body with "SOUL" restored, we know nothing about; Type or ability for Identity? Social communication? Speech? Worship? Space time travel method? Role assignments? Single or group assignments? etc etc. So, yes i do believe the "SOUL" will be restored to our spirit bodies, at the
resurrection. Jesus stated that His Father's house was many mansions, room for all, and that if it were not true He would have told us!!!! That He would come againand receive us to Himself.
Now i submit that if this is not "TRUTH", mankind has been unthinkingly deceived by a most cruel hoax. That the writers of what we call the Holy Biblewere con men and women. That in essence Jesus never existed, and mankinds "HOPE", in the Christ, is in vain. i have no doubt that i receive continual guidancefrom some "power" from outside my mental being. Why would anyone consider it impossible that they are constituted a human creature, the highest form of "LIFE" on earth, with a constitution which is beyond man's ability to ever know the complete complexity. All systems working for upwards of a hundred years andmore, and perhaps several hundred years in the future, such as early man, eating from the tree of life. And as it happened before, the final destiny of man in his new spiritual body will live forever with his "SOUL" intact.
i equate "hope" with "confidence", and "certainty".
Well, Earl, it seems the believers are present and accounted for. The unknown attributes of our future spiritual bodies do not detract from the confidence of believers.
It is a bit disappointing that, so far, those who doubt or reject the resurrection have not directly addressed the issue.
Preston,
I'm not so sure that there is a large contingent who doubt the resurrection. I do believe though that there is a very large contingent of those who question whether or not "they will be resurrected."
Iaffal, are you trying to say that most Christians still believe in an afterlife, and that Christ rose from the dead, it is just that many think the afterlife is in some sort of etheral spirit-like body?
I think the problem is much worse. Most Christians certainly believe in an afterlife. However, many (if not most) 'professional' Christian theologians (mainly within 'mainstream' denominations like Anglican and Lutheran) do not believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus, let alone an afterlife. The most accepted theory today by these 'professional' theologians is that the eye-witness accounts were just mental hullicinations brought about by grief. As I quoted above, for example:
‘Does that mean that it's a physical resuscitated body that gets up and walks out of the tomb …I don't know anybody that thinks that the appearance of the risen Christ to Jesus, I mean to Paul was a physical resuscitated body… So I'm not concerned about empty tombs or any of what I call secondary late developing evidence for the resurrection.’ (Bishop John Shelby Spong, Anglican)
Perhaps suprisingly, a number of regular commentators here (like our friend Elaine), seem to share Bishop Spong's views. The question Preston seems to be asking, but which has not been answered, is how one can have Bishop Spong's view and still call oneself a 'Christian' let alone an 'Adventist'?
Stephen,
Elaine's question speaks directly to my point. If I'm following Preston's logic here, belief in the resurrection and faith in the resurrected One equals… hope. Preston's question can be reframed, "how can I be sure that I will be resurrected"? "I hope so." That's why I am coming to understand my clearly the importance of "the hope of the gospel." We can be sure because of what Christ has done to make this hope real / realized… To question the assurance God has given everyone of us, Acts 17:31; Romans 4:16, is a matter of faith / unbelief at the end of the day.
I believe to do need to make one qualification… the major concern is whether or not one will be raised in the 1st resurrection….
laffal,
As they say, that qualification (re: the 1st resurrection) is, indeed, "non-trivial."
And why would anyone who believes in the resurrection doubt he will be resurrected?
Can anyone prove from the Bible unequivocally, in what form the resurrected will be? There are texts indicating that we would be in physical bodies as now, and others that we will be in a different form. See the various forms of Jesus after his resurrection: he could walk though locked doors; was unrecognized by his disciples and Mary at at the tomb. What texts prove either?
Elaine… Philippians 3:21 says that the resurrected body will be just like the body Jesus' resurrected body.
Jesus resurrected body was certainly not like his previous body. Is that the same form that those resurrected will be? Unrecognized by their closest friends? Able to walk through locked doors?
Mary did not know that the figure she saw was Jesus (John 20:14.
When the disciples met "where the doors were shut" for fear of the Jews, Jesus cam and stood in their midst (John 29:19).
And after eight day agains his disciples were inside, the doors having been shut, and Jesus stood in their midst (John 20:26).
Many other signs Jesus performed (John 20:30).
Two disciples wre going to Emmaus when Jesus approached and began traveling with them but they did not recognize him (Luke 24:13-16.
There obviously is a vast difference between a earthly body of flesh (dust to dust) and a spiritual body's possibilities of changing its appearance. As humans we think of "spiritual" entities as invisible or nonexistent. We can't possibly know of the unearthly powers of the "SPIRIT mind & body". John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, the glory of the only begotten of the Father". Jesus was and is a Spirit. Being in Spirit form He raised Himself from the dead. He was able to pass through barriers with no resistance. He was able to appear physical, changing from one form to another at will. In human form He could not have escaped gravity or survived without oxygen. 1Cor 15:50 "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
The NT is full of references of the weakness of the flesh ( dust to dust). The mind
(soul) is willing but the flesh is weak, corrupt.
Elaine: 'Can anyone prove from the Bible unequivocally, in what form the resurrected will be?'
Earl: 'There obviously is a vast difference between a earthly body of flesh (dust to dust) and a spiritual body's possibilities of changing its appearance.'
Elaine you appear to be conflating two separate issues.
The exact nature of the Resurrection body is indeed a mystery. Christ's body is clearly of a state we have trouble understanding. It seems to have supernatural qualities that are far above our sinful mundane bodies. It reminds one of an angels form, which likewise seems to have similar supernatural qualities. Christ did after all say in the Resurrection we will be like the angels.
To use Paul's analogy of different types of flesh, would a fish contemplate the body of a flying bird? Would a catapillar really contemplate the life of a butterfly. And yet a bird and a butterfly have a flesh that is still 'real', even though the fish and the cattapillar could not really understanding it.
To say Christ had a mysterious resurrected body is still very different from the Liberal Christian claim that 'spritual' somehow means non-existent. Liberal theologians often try to use 1 Cor 15 to suggest there was no empty tomb, which suggests Christ' flesh is decomposing somewhere still, and makes no sense of the Gospel's apologetic about the empty tomb. Liberal theologians suggest that Christ's Resurrection is just a mental dellusion, a mass hullicination brought about through grief.
So let me ask Elaine. Do you believe in the empty tomb?
I have seen what the Israeli guides claim is "the empty tomb." But there can be no evidence that Jesus was buried there.
Is that a 'yes' – you do believe in the empty tomb of Jesus?
No, because no one knows for certain the location of the tomb he was said to be buried in. Do you know? I believe that the Gospel writers wrote of the tomb, but even they did not pinpoint the location, did they?
It's rather odd that locating or identifying an empty tomb is of such importance.
Elaine,
For me, no physical proof of Christ's resurrection is required. I believe. If physical proof is required, it is not belief based on faith. It's knowledge. No?
Elaine: 'It's rather odd that locating or identifying an empty tomb is of such importance.'
Elaine, it is only those who deny the Resurrection who are looking for a physical tomb. To those who believe Christ was historically and corporeally raised from the dead, there is no point trying to find Jesus' remains in a tomb – because the tomb would be empty.
I think you might have it all backwards.
Is it possible to agree that the factual nature of the physical event associated with what the historic Christian Church has proclaimed as the resurrection of Jesus will always be shrouded in mystery? Arguing about what or what did not happen seems to me to be interesting exercise in argumentation, but, in the end, why can’t we simply say, we do not know exactly what was involved. Historically, Paul, who was the first person to write about the event, was not physically present when whatever happened occurred. He is amazingly vague about the physical nature of the event since his introduction to it came in the form of a highly emotionalized “out-of-body” experience. In the end, why not agree that we will never know what “really” happened and move on?
The salient mysteries about the resurrection are whether some who claim Christianity can reasonably make such claim if they don’t believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead; and why they would claim Christianity if they don’t believe that He is risen.
If I’m not mistaken, that’s Preston’s question.
Erv,
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," Hebrews 11:1.
The requirement of proof is not from the believers camp, but from the skeptics. From the point of view of the believer, the need for proof is a diversion — and proof of a lack of faith (see Thomas). This is not a judgment, but an observation. Since we will never know what "really" happened (actually, I believe we will all know — eventually), all that is left is whether we believe or not. That is the question.
The punchline in the Life of Pi, whether God exists, explores much the same point.
We'll never 100% know either way. All that is left then is a choice whether or not to believe. Within that paradigm, why would someone chose not to believe?
Yes, it is a mystery.
Yes, we don't know exactly the nature of Christ's Resurrected body.
But to deny the Resurrection as a historical and corporeal event is to deny Christianity whole raison d'etre.
If people want to say we can't know for sure that is one thing. However, modern Liberal theologians like Bultmann and Spong go further. They effectively say the Resurrection is impossible, which is very different from saying it is a mystery. They justify this scepticism upon rationalist presumptions that attempts to demytholize the Bible – much like Jefferson's famous Bible.
Are you saying the Resurrection is a mystery, or are you saying it is impossible as a historical and corporeal event? There's a big difference.
Erv: 'Historically, Paul, who was the first person to write about the event, was not physically present when whatever happened occurred.'
Actually, Erv from a historical-critical point of view (i.e. the very method used by Liberal theologians), there isn't much in the NT that can be completely trusted as not contradicting each other. Paul for example didn't seem to be 'with the programme' with the rest of the Apostles and Elders.
And yet, the central point about the Resurrection is the cornerstone story of the NT, which all authors, representing multiple tradition strands (often cut-in-paste in the same NT passage) all attest to the central point. It isn't just Paul – the evidence suggest numerous strands of oral tradition about the Resurrection event, as witnessed by numerous people.
If it was just Mary Magdalene that saw, that might suggest a God Delusion (she was demon possessed once, which might suggest a mental illness). But the notion that many, if not hundreds witnessed Christ's Resurrection, as part of some collective grief-hallucination, is absurd. Apart from anything else, NT Wright's very good work on the subject demonstrates such a view would be contrary to the 2nd-Temple mindset of the Apostles, who were all Jews. It would only demonstrate Jesus was in fact a failed Messiah.
Again, if you want to say the Resurrection was a mystery, I am happy with that – and probably there with you. Much like the topic of the Trinity – don't try to understand something beyond human comprehension. However, if you instead are saying it is impossible, and don't believe it occured by faith, then I'm sorry – that is anathema to what the 'good news' of Christianity is all about.
Paul had a very practicle reasoning process when it comes to the question of the resurrection, for this was a question being bantered about by the Corinthians:
If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then what's the point of being a Christian?
Indeed. To reject the Resurrection is to deny the whole point of being a Christian. The Gospel, which is literally the 'good news', is the good news that Jesus has risen from the dead.
As I was saying above, I think it is ok to say the Resurrection is a mystery that we mere human beings don't quite understand. One could say the same about many things in the Bible. One could certainly say the same about the Trinity.
However, modern Liberal theologians (usually in the 'mainstream' religions of Anglican, RC and Lutheran faiths) go further than that nuetral line of awe. Instead, they positively say the Resurrection didn't happen, that there was no empty tomb, because modern science says such events impossible. Oh what little faith! What small-mindedness relying on rationalist presumptions, relying on a world one can see with one's own eyes!
The Resurrection isn't about scietific proof – it's about hope in the absence of scientific proof. Without hope, this life here on earth wouldn't be worth living, except in some sort of hedonistic, selfish way.
As posted on another strand, Christ, in the Bible, defines belief as THE WORK OF GOD:
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent," John 6:29.
The Bible defines unbelief as sin:
"See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness," Hebrews 3:13-14.
Is belief in Christ possible without belief in His resurrection?
NO!
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, (Rom 1:1-6)