It's one thing to say that we don't know that something paranormal physically happened 2000 years ago because we weren't there.
But it's different to say that we don't have much opinion whether literature (four books of gospels) presents something as real or not. Unlike the physical events that occurred 2000 years ago, we do have the literature in front of us to check. It's something I do have a strong belief about.
What you have in front of you is a story. And like most stories, it presents itself as having "happened", whether it actually happened or not. … Is it fiction? Intended to convey a religious ideology? Is it an exaggerated glorification of events that became a religious legend through the telling and retelling? Is it a deliberate misrepresentation of events intended to cohere and solidify a particular religious cult? Is it an accurate documentation of events by eye-witnesses? Or is it some combination of all these?
What you have is a story. How you view the story is up to you, but some of those choices are less likely than others. All I'm suggesting is that we be honest with ourselves and each other about it, and stop treating the text as if it came directly from the mouth of God. Because it did not.
The ancient Jews believed in a physical resurrection. It's only natural that the audience's interpretation would be that this referred to a physical experience of Jesus in the "good news."
Not just the Jews. Most people of that time believed in all sorts of "supernatural" feats, like the dead coming back to life, because they had very little understanding of natural processes and limitations. That doesn't make the claims in the Bible story true. In fact, it makes them far more likely to be false, as were all the other claims of resurrection at the time. People just didn't know any better, at the time.
Nowhere does it say that the resurrection of Jesus was only a metaphor or only spiritual, not physical. But it does present the events as physical, like the angel rolling away the stone or the curtain of the temple being torn. Those kings of things do not happen "just metaphorically."
Why would a metaphorical work of fiction proclaim itself to be a metaphorical work of fiction? That would undercut it's own intent.
The purpose of writing metaphorical fiction is to convey a greater truth by manipulating the facts being presented as actuality. And it's a method that works very well. Writers have been using it for eons, and are still using it, today. And I can't think of a single time when the writer explained up front that this is what they are doing. So why would you expect them to do so in this instance?
I'm not saying that the story of Jesus' life and death and resurrection is complete metaphorical fiction. And I don't believe it is. But neither do I believe it to be an accurate representation of historical events. Because that would be extremely unlikely given what we know about the history of the story, (where the copies of the texts came from, and when they were written) and of the limits of human intellect and physical reality.
Whether or not you understand the Christian message of God's love healing us, as a matter of interpreting literature, it is very hard and unrealistic to read all the healing stories that way.
I honestly do not see why you find it so difficult to simply take the stories for what they are: stories.
Let me give you an example from Mark 2:
* Jesus said that He, the Son of Man, has a special power to forgive sins. Is that only metaphorical, or did Jesus literally have the power to forgive sins?
We all have the "power" to forgive sins. No metaphorical understanding is necessary, here. This was a new idea to the people he was talking to. But it's not a new idea to us.
But this doesn't have any bearing on the story being metaphorical. All stories present characters that say things that are not metaphorical. How could it be otherwise? The "Little Engine That Could" is a metaphorical children's story, yet it, too, has characters that say things that are literally true. Yet it remains a work of metaphorical fiction.
* Are "blasphemies" metaphorical? If you say something false about religion, your blasphemy is meeting the literal definition of blasphemy.
False statements about religion according to whom? Blasphemy is a subjective truth/value judgment. It's not based on metaphor, it's based on differing opinion.
* Jesus is saying that He has a unique power to heal people just like the literal power he claims to forgive sins
"Jesus" is a character in a story. He says whatever the author of the story writes him to say.
And we all have the power to forgive. There's nothing particularly unique about it. The Jews at the time, however, thought they had to go to God and make animal sacrifices to be forgiven. Jesus was trying to teach them that human beings are manifestations of God ("children" of God, made in God's image) and so have the power to forgive themselves and each other. And he was acting as an example of this idea, to them. This was a very new and radical idea at that time. Remember that Jesus was an ancient Jew talking to other ancient Jews. He was NOT TALKING TO US. We need to understand what he says in that context.
*Is the sick person a metaphor? Is the scribe a metaphor? Is the house in the story a metaphor? Is the sick person's bed a metaphor? These are all presented as physical things.
They are always represented as physical things, whether it's metaphorical fiction or not. I, personally, don't see much of a point to the telling and retelling of this story if it's not at least somewhat metaphorical. Because if it's not, what do I care about some 2000 year old man-god? What do I care what he taught his fellow Jews two centuries ago? I'm not even Jewish.
It's as metaphor that I find value and meaning in his story relative to my life, today. It's by seeing the "sick man" as myself, or as people I care about that the story becomes relevant to me. To us. I think we are meant to read the story as if all the characters represent some part of ourselves. We are Pilot, condemning Christ out of convenience. We are the blind man, healed through faith. We are Judas, turning our back on Christ for the sake of money. We are the indifferent Roman soldiers, playing games at the foot of the cross of Christ. And so on. Do you really not see the truth about ourselves being revealed, metaphorically, through these characters and events?
We crucify Christ in our hearts every single day, in so many ways, just as the priests and Pilot and those soldiers did in the story. And we doubt and deny Christ every day in our hearts, because of our fear and greed, just like Judas and the apostles did in the story. On and on it goes. Those characters are us, in one way or another. And they are intended to show us the truth about ourselves, and the truth about how with God's love and forgiveness acting within us, we can be healed and saved from ourselves. And we can become a healer to others, as Jesus did.
It's all about the metaphor. Otherwise, it doesn't really mean anything. Its just another religious legend.
*In the ancient times, Judea did have "healers" who went around with spells and herbs to heal people. The Torah even gives rituals for this. This story in that context would be presented as a _literal_ healing. The person physically got better and was physically able to walk.
The world is full of healers. Always has been. There is nothing significant about this. Why would another story about a healer matter, if that's all it was?
*If the healing was just about the person being healed _emotionally_ like a metaphorical healing, the crowd wouldn't have been amazed like they would for a physical healing.
That "crowd" will be just as amazed as the author of the story writes them to be. You keep forgetting that you're reading a story. The crowd's "amazement" is a literary device, whether it actually happened or not. And we do not know if any of these events actually happened or not. What we do know, is that it
IS a literary device, now.
So Jesus is presented as, and probably was, a person who attempted literal healings like the other healers of his age and like Charismatic Christians and some mainstream Christian saints in more modern times.
To us, Jesus is a character in a religious story. If he actually existed, and what he actually did if he existed, has been lost to history. All we have now are the stories. Since we cannot go back to compare the actual events to the story, all we can do is make use of the story as best we can. And I don't think we are making our best use of the story by pretending that it's not a story. Because that's basically being dishonest. Of course we "suspend our disbelief" when we read such stories to make them more engaging and effecting, but we don't do so to the point of denying that they
are a story. And we should not do so to the point of missing the metaphorical significance and relevance to us, today.
Do you think that Jesus in particular, not just God in general, has a unique ability as God's Son to heal you?
I believe that Jesus is a character in a story. So he can't actually do anything for me, as such. But I believe that the ideals that the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection convey to me, metaphorically, have offered me a pathway to spiritual healing, and through the healing of my spirit, to a healing of my relationship to the physical realm, as well.
Christianity emphasizes Jesus so much as a saving, resurrecting co-sufferer, and now you have lost that "crutch"? It feels tough for people like me who put so much focus on Jesus and the Church in their lives and minds.
I am not anti-religion, for others. I understand that a great many people find much positive value in the practice of religion. But I, personally, have little use for it. I find it constraining and controlling, and too often absurdly ego-centric.
I am a taoist Christian, which means I don't generally view "God" or Christ as a 'being'. I view them more as a great existential source/mystery (in the case of "God") and an ideal based on love and compassion (in the case of Christ). So I have no need of miracles or supernatural feats to help me 'believe'. I believe simply because I want to, and because it works. And I am not concerned about the fact that I will die. It is as it should be.
