Twice in my life, someone has told me that they are a Christian but they are not really sure if they believe that Jesus rose from the dead. If anyone out there shares that view, could you please explain that to me?

I grew up as a Unitarian Universalist, which is technically a form of Protestantism. The UU church accepts all forms of belief and promotes peace and acceptance between people of different beliefs. One of the “creeds” of the UU church I remember learning in Sunday School is that Jesus was a very influential prophet, but not necessarily the Sun of God. The myths surrounding Jesus’s death and resurrection are most likely influenced by stories of other religions, so—without getting into an argument into the actuality of the Bible stories—one does not need necessarily to believe in Jesus as the son of God to believe in his teachings, which of course promote peace and other sorts of nice things.

The Bible is full of stories that have larger-than-life aspects of them; Moses parting the Red Sea, people living for inhumanly long times, resurrection… But the important thing in these stories are the ideas and morals that are contained within them. The fact that Jesus may or may not have risen from the dead doesn’t really matter to me. But then again, I’m just an atheist.

They go to Church, and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. However they aren’t sure if he was truly divine in the sense of the son of god or he was revived from the dead.

This may mean that they aren’t actually Christian in the sense of the word, but they still follow the bible’s teachings and go to church.

It is possible to believe and follow part of something. Having doubts about part of it doesn’t invalidate the rest of the belief.

I’m not a Christian, in fact I’m pretty anti-Christian.

However, I think for the word “Christian” to have any semantic meaning, you need to set boundaries. I mean, you wouldn’t define “Christian” so broadly so as to include people like me in the definition.

@ParaParaYukiko, I don’t really buy the “idea/moral” thing because the moral of Jesus being resurrected is that he saves your ass from the judgment you deserve from Yahweh. If you don’t believe in the resurrection, if you don’t believe in the need for salvation, or that there even is a god named Yahweh, the guy from the Old Testament, who will kill you for disobeying any of his 613 wonderful commandments—what’s left?

“Jesus had some nice moral philosophy, except for the parts I disagree with?” That’s not a religion, anymore than my admiration for John Stuart Mill makes me belong to the “Millian” religion.

@josie I’m not sure that any of us can answer your question effectively as none of us are making that statement. I cannot defend a position that isn’t my own. We can only speculate. I’m curious to know if you asked the people who said this to you, and what their responses were. What was the context of the conversation? What brought that up in the first place, and did they frame their thoughts accurately?
Despit what @Qingu says, I think that perhaps the closest answer has already been given. These people try to live their lives by the “Christian tenets” so to speak, without actually believing in the godhood of Jesus Christ.
I’m sure that @Qingu would then argue that they should then not claim to be Christians, but rather that they try to live a Christian life. To which I would say “touche”. But he would be arguing semantics and preaching to the choir. We’re now getting into territory that I feel strongly about which is that people are lazy speakers and frequently use words in an improper fashion so that they no longer convey the intended meaning, but when it is pointed out to them, they defend their laziness and say stupid things like; “Well, you know what I meant.” But as you see, we don’t know, and end up having discussions like these, while the perpetrators of these conversations are blissfully ignorant, unaware, and watching something mind-numbing on tv.

There are a lot of Christian faiths that don’t believe in the virgin birth, or the resurrection.
They baffle me. How can you accept that Jesus is God, and discount these parts? These same people probably bought into the entire daVinci code thing.
That said, Christ’s message is more important than his credentials. If you accept him, the rest doesn’t really matter.

It is very simple… Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ, thus the reference to Christ in Christiantiy. One cannot believe to be a Christian without believing in the teachings of Jesus. It is contradictory. If one professes to be a Christian, then he must believe what Jesus said is true, or he negates the Christian faith by omission. There are not only biblical references to the resurrection, but historical references as well. Look them up! There is as much, if not more, documentation about his resurrection in historical documents. In order to be a Chrostian, you must believe tat Jesus was crucified, dead and buried… and on the third day he rose. Saying you are a Christian and believing in the doctrines, only to have doubt about the truth of those doctrines is a walking contradiction. Just my humble opinio for what it is worth.

No, not all Christians believe that Jesus is divine. In fact, the divinity of Christ did not become part of Christian theology until the Gospel of John, which was not written by the original apostle but by a disciple of the same name around the 2nd Century A.D.

The original Jesus movement was for Jews only, and they believed that Jesus was a man. St. James, believed to be the brother of Jesus, was the bishop of Jerusalem for about 50 years after Jesus’ death, was the keeper of the Jesus movement tradition that held that Jesus was never anything other than a man. Islam (which claims to have its own divine revelation on this point) and Judaism both consider Jesus to be a prophet and “Son of God” but still a man like all prophets were.

Thomas Cahill in his book, Desire of the Everlasting Hills approaches the resurrection from a literary and historical point of view. He personally is a believer, but he points to passages where the witnesses speak of their eyes being sensitive to light, which would be consistent with something like ergot poisoning, which might also entail hallucinations. He also reports that the witnesses did not immediately recognize the person as Jesus, so it could have been someone else. If you’ve ever broken up with a boyfriend or girlfriend and you keep thinking you see him or her in a crowd, you get a sense of how the mind can play tricks on a person.

Also, according to Cahill, Jesus’ message actually makes more sense if you read Jesus as being a man. It makes the “commandment” to Love Thy Neighbor more of an invitation (to a change of heart) than something imperative and coerced.

The resurrection and the redemption were not a “teachings” of Christ. Those were theological additions that came way after St. Paul.

@Zuma I respectfully disagree. Again, Christianity, is based upon Jesus’ teachings… and his teachings’ clearly state that he was not a mere man, but of the divine. One cannot be a Christian without believing what he stated as truth. Thomas Cahill, and/or any other man can rationalize in any book they wish, but it is simply a “man’s” perspective, not a Godly one. Relying on a human perspective gives you exactly that… a human perspective. Great justification, in my humble opinion, for denial. The universe is perfect… and it speaks to an intelligent design. One of which must have an Intelligent creator. The argument that the writer proposes is one of human perspective given that we are in a universe of cause and effect, based upon the Big Bang theory… God exists outside of that dynamic… and thus, is not hindered by what we have as limitations based upon physics.

I agree with @Zuma. A lot of the stuff about resurrection, the virgin birth, etc., were added much later in the Gospels. And @Holden_Caulfield, with all due respect, believing in what the Bible says is relying on a human perspective. The Gospels were not written by men, nor were they written by men who claimed to be speaking for God himself (as was the case with Mohammad and the Koran). The Bible has all the flaws and inaccuracies of any other man-written piece of work.

Being a Christian isn’t exactly what it used to be. That’s why something called the Great Schism happened and a guy named Martin Luther nailed a bill of protest against a church wall. It’s been over 2,000 years since Jesus lived, and the way his religion is to be interpreted has varied greatly. We simply can’t take Christianity the same way it was to be taken back in the Roman times; in an age so vastly different it seriously is the best thing we can do to believe more in the morals of Jesus’s teachings. Someone does not have to be divine to have an impact on humanity and spread their ideas. Ghandi did it, and he never claimed to be a god.

I guess some may believe it he may not neccessarily rose in the physical sense but rather in the spiritual sense.
There can be a huge number or reasons why some people chose to believe the way they do. Faith doesn’t come in a perfect package all wrapped up in a neat little bow. You can be taught a million times how to wrap it up and still come up with something new and original to you.

I wanted to make clear that I wasn’t, like, judging people who don’t believe in the resurrection but still call themselves “Christians.” I mean, I don’t believe the resurrection happened; I don’t care that you don’t believe it. Hell, I’m glad you don’t believe it! I’m just being picky about semantics.

@Zuma, I think you are making some assumptions about Jesus’ original followers.

The fact of the matter is that we don’t know much about Jesus’ original cult. The gospels, as you noted, were written decades after Jesus died (though 2nd cent. a.d. sounds pretty late for even John…)

This means that the earliest “Christian” documents we have are from Paul. Contrary to what you indicated, Paul’s “Christology” (the idea that Jesus was divine) was quite developed even in his earliest letters. Jesus’ divinity is basically central to Paul’s theology.

I don’t think Paul is accurate. He’s admitted he never met Jesus; his letters mention absolutely nothing about Jesus’ life or even his moral teachings. They basically co-opt Jesus into the role of Osiris or similar deities in mystery religions popular at the time. I think it’s pretty clear that Paul is basically a charlatan trying to co-opt Jesus’ original cult.

But it does leave the nature of the original cult basically a mystery. We know that Paul’s faction wasn’t the only one of early christians. Other groups would go on to form the more-gnosticy Docetics (they believed Jesus was a pure spirit and had no body) and the more Jewish-flavored Christians that Paul was bitching about in his letter to the Galatians. The earliest letter from Paul is generally dated around 50 A.D. which is supposedly two decades after Jesus was around.

So this basically leaves the gospels, mostly the four in the new testament because others appear later. The exception to the noncanonicals being later is Thomas, which seems to have a lot in common with the “sayings” parts of the syncretic (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) gospels. So this gives weight to the idea that maybe the four gospels were composed of circulating, earlier sources, like collections of Jesus’ “wise sayings.” Also, the author/editors of Matthew and Luke both clearly had copies of Mark (because they both contain most of Mark verbatim), so Mark must be the earliest.

Scholars divide up the gospels based on their styles and presume that they are edited complilations of earlier works (including “Q,” which isn’t actually a physical document but rather, simply, “all of the parts that are the same in Matthew and Luke, but aren’t in Mark).

Which is to say, scholars have tried to piece together “Jesus sayings” that might be earlier than the gospels, or even Paul. And in these sayings traditions—which, possibly, maybe could reflect something Jesus’ original cult believed, the only thing that agrees across all the sources is… Jesus doesn’t like divorce.

Man, I can’t believe I wrote all that. TL;DR: saying a “Christian” is someone who follows Jesus’ so-called “original” teachings is misleading because we really have no idea what those are.

Declaring oneself a “Christian” is very popular. You don’t get excluded from clubs for it. You don’t get denied promotion or advancement for it. You don’t get herded into cattle cars for it.
It’s safe and does not require you work hard to derive the benefits. You can pick and choose what you believe or doubt. When you are part of the majority, you can do what ever you want.

@Dr_Lawrence, interesting perspective. I’ve honestly never thought of it that way before.

More charitably, I think you can say that for many people, their “Christianity,” (and also their “Judaism” or “Islam” or whatever) is less a set of metaphysical beliefs and more just going along with the superficial culture of their peer groups. Like, many people in my family identify as Jewish despite being outright atheists. Jewishness for them is basically defined as “enjoying matzo ball soup.”

@Dr_Lawrence Let me say this as a Christian. Never ever once was I ever given anything for free because I was Christian or otherwise. I worked most of my adult life and believe in working hard for my pay. And I have as much right to do whatever I want as much as the next guy within the boundries of the laws as a citizen of the US.
And I got news for you. There were plenty of Christians also killed by the Germans in WWll. And plenty killed through out history because of their faith. So maybe you’ll want to do a little reading before you think being a Christian is a free get out of jail card.

@Pandora, please.

Christians have indeed been persecuted throughout history in various places. But not in America (unless it was the Protestant KKK persecuting the Catholics). Not for most of European history. And not in the world you are currently living in.

I’m an atheist and I honestly don’t give a shit that atheism is the least trusted religious position/belief system in America (even below Muslim and Mormon). I mean, I expect that from Americans. I don’t think I’m persecuted—there’s a difference between unpopularity and persecution.

Just don’t pretend that you’re persecuted. Or ignore your privilege—because you are the beneficiary of your religious group’s popularity, even if you don’t get stuff for “free.”

@Qingu, I can certainly say that being Christian has not won me any favors of any kind. I do not go about every corner announcing my faith. I don’t remember anyone ever asking me either except on the boards or when Johovah witness come knocking on my door on a Saturday morning. And let me tell you being hispanic in a country that right now has an on going battle with latinos is no picnic either. I was born and raised here, second generation and I can tell you over the years my former name didn’t get me any special attention except for a we will call you, don’t call us. And after I was married and my last name changed I didn’t get the boot till they saw me. And yes I could tell it was because I was spanish. They would take one look at me and show me the door in seconds with and excuse that the possition was just filled. I even tried to rent an apartment once and told the lady I was on the way to rent and when I got there she smiled when she saw my husband but as soon as she saw me, suddenly there were no apartments to rent. So for your info being Christian did not help people over come any predjudice in my behalf. I’ve earned everything in my life except what my parents provided for me. BTW there are plenty of Christians in our jails. Funny how that little fact didn’t keep them out.

@Pandora, I am sure that being hispanic has made your life shittier that your life would have been had you been white. Maybe in obvious ways, maybe in subtle ways.

As a white person, I may not have gotten any “special favors.” But I do have what’s called “white privilege”—it’s simply all the shit that I don’t have to deal with, but latinos and blacks and other “underclass” minorities do.

A similar form of privilege exists for Christians. Christians don’t get any explicit “favors,” but like white people, they are a privileged class, based on their popularity and their perceived “acceptability” in the eyes of society as a whole.

I will say that I think white privilege is qualitatively different than “Christian privilege” or whatever you want to call it. Skin color isn’t something you choose, and it doesn’t actually matter to who you are on the inside. Whereas a religion is something you choose and deeply informs who you really are. So I’m wary of comparing them. I only brought up race to demonstrate the idea of “privilege”—that your identity may not seem like you get favors but still gives you an edge over people with other identities.

@Qingu Choosing a faith doesn’t really ever say who you are either. Some choose to stay in a faith they were born too. I for one never assume because someone is Christian or Athiest that it makes them good or bad. I’ve seen good and bad in both. I’m not saying that Atheist aren’t shunned but I think its the hard core activist that feel they have to wage a battle against everything, especially the Christians that make people feel they aren’t welcoming. I believe in live and let live. I don’t care what anyone elses belief system is, but if someone gets obnoxious it just bugs me to the core. I don’t go around preaching to Atheist that they have to or should believe in God or that they are foolish for not believing but I certainly have heard that several times in my life for what I believe. And before you say it, yes I know there are Christian activist that are like that as well and I can truly say I find them as obnoxious as the Athiest activist.

@josie So sorry for going off topic. I’m going to stop now

@Pandora, I agree that “choosing” your religion isn’t really simple or trivial. And for a lot of people they are basically “born into” their religious faiths… which is unfortunate.

But faith is something you can change by, for example, learning about alternate views, or just looking at your own beliefs in a new light. And while I agree that there are lots of good and bad people of all religions (and lack of religion), I do think the content of one’s religion affects their views on a great many things. Many Christians and Muslims have politically and socially conservative views because such views are found in the Bible and the Quran.

This is in contrast to one’s race, which is not chosen, cannot be changed (except I suppose with surgery) and moreover has absolutely nothing to do with who anyone inherently is except indicating the amount of melanin in your skin. Likewise with sexual orientation.

So I don’t think “Christian privilege” is the same thing as “white privilege” or “straight privilege.” Tangent of a tangent. :)

@Holden_Caulfield I wrote a reply (that others may be interested in too) about how Christianity has gone through at least seven distinct changes over time. But it was way too long to post here so I posted it on my blog.

Maybe they call themselves xtian because they believe in the principles other than the resurrection? Maybe they are just not comfortable in converting away from xtianity even though they no longer believe in the resurrection which is one of the big tenants of the faith?