Joe Smith, come forth

 

Previously posted on September 9, 2023. I feel like reposting it...

Here is a possible argument for Christianity from apologists: not only was the resurrection of Jesus unique, the entire concept of a bodily resurrection is unique (and uniquely good), since it saves both the body and the soul of the individual. Indeed, it saves the human *person*. Joe Smith from Missoula, Montana will rise as Joe Smith from Missoula, Montana. (Of course, the concept itself is older than Christianity, but it´s still regarded as Biblical.) Compare this with reincarnation, in which the body and the personality dies, while the soul becomes a new person (say Jane Doe from Corpus Christi, Texas). Indeed, the goal might be to merge with Brahman and just disappear as a drop disappears in the ocean (and that´s that).

But why is the Christian goal “better” than any other? First, it´s not even obvious that our personality does survive the resurrection intact. Jesus strongly implies that the resurrected are genderless, “like the angels in heaven”. But our physical bodies are strongly gendered. So already here, we don´t rise with our personalities entirely intact. (And even if you believe in trans-genderism, the same principle still applies. Angelic non-gender isn´t the same thing as California trans-gender!) Paul further states that the earthly body rises as a heavenly body, again suggesting that we´re dealing with a different personality of *some* sort. And what exactly will all the resurrected *do* after entering heaven, paradise or the New Jerusalem? While the so-called millennium is sometimes described in utopian but earthly terms (instead of war, there will be perpetual peace), the further goal is more other-worldly. Like angels in heaven, the resurrected humans will presumably spend an eternity singing praises of “Holy, holy, holy” to the Lord of Hosts. Good or bad, could it really be said that one of these quasi-angelic beings is still “Joe Smith of Missoula, Montana” in any meaningful sense of the term?

Further, why is a heavenly body better than, say, a “mere” soul? In some ways, they actually seem pretty similar. The resurrection body of Jesus could walk through walls, make itself invisible and change shape. Mary Magdalene didn´t immediately recognize Jesus at the tomb, and neither did the disciples who walked with Jesus to Emmaus. Thomas saw the resurrected Jesus with his hands and feet pierced, but when Jesus appeared to John at Patmos, the scars of the crucifixion were gone. But how is any of this different from having some kind of etheric or astral body, while the physical body is simply dispensed with? Indeed, in what sense is the heavenly body different at all from an astral body? In what sense is the “soul” different from an astral body?

Even in Biblical times, there was an idea that the ghost of a deceased person (i.e. the soul) looked and acted like the physical person while alive. This is why Peter is mistaken for a ghost in Acts. Today, people who meet ghosts of dead relatives report that they look “physical”, even to the point of wearing clothes! But if so, the goal of Christianity (the resurrection-body) doesn´t seem so unique anymore. It seems to be a goal that could be preached and/or accommodated by many other religious traditions, too. This refers to early Christianity. Later, a more robustly physical-material conception of the resurrection took hold, in which people rise like Lazarus – with a healed earthly body – but somewhat curiously, one that lasts forever (or in another version, for 1000 years, to be followed by the more “heavenly” angelic scenario discussed above). But while many people do indeed find such an extended utopian sequel to their present condition appealing, many others might not. Indeed, it´s not at all clear why the idyllic scenarios in Awake and Watchtower magazines should be considered the best any religion has to offer.

In original Shaiva Siddhanta, a Tantric system in India, every soul is a potential Shiva and the goal is to become a Shiva (not sure why the original one likes the competition). In Kashmir Shaivism, the goal is to realize your monistic identity with the cosmic consciousness, which is completely free and unbound. In Vajrayana Buddhism, the goal is the creation of a supernatural “enjoyment body” that will make you able to traverse the entire universe, including countless of heaven-worlds. And in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or the more gaudy versions thereof, you can have sex with Krishna in an enchanted forest! Even reincarnation, if it´s done in the right spirit (pun intended), can be seen as a better goal. Maybe Joe Smith from Missoula, Montana can eventually become an alien queen on a distant and much more interesting planet? And maybe an owl from a Montana forest can replace Joe Smith…

Of course, a Christian can argue that only the sacrificial death of Jesus atones for the sins of humanity, so none of these fantastic visions will ever come true, while the Christian scenario will. But that isn´t entirely obvious either, since the number of non-Christian visions of blessed afterlives (of whatever kind) are just as common as Christian visions (and even more common than eye-witness accounts of Jesus´ resurrection). So it´s not clear why we should privilege Christianity on this score either.

Even apart from the fact that the idea of resurrection comes from Zoroastrianism…

With that, I close this admittedly somewhat esoteric discussion.