Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Trailblazer]

And what if Peter spoke the truth about the fulfillment of the "prophecy" of this "comforter", the "Spirit of truth" when he wrote about what happened shortly after Jesus' death in the 1st century to the disciples of Jesus to whom the promise had been made...

"This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.


Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." ​

Acts of the Apostles 2:32-33

...said fulfillment of prophecy having reportedly happened BEFORE any of the recipients had had the presence of mind to record Jesus' uttering of the prophecy in writing, I might add.

With all due respect, I was never a Christian before I became a Baha'i, so I do not know the Bible very well. I only know what I have learned from posting to Christians on forums and looking up many chapters and verses on the internet. Logically speaking, since Christians cannot even agree among themselves what the verses mean, it is obvious that there is no clear meaning of the verses.

God never intended the Bible to be fully understood until the time of the end:
Daniel Chapter 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

Although I do not think they did it deliberately, the Church deceived Christians and led them astray. The early Church fathers simply interpreted the Bible the way they did because they could not understand it. As Daniel said in Chapter 12:9 “And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”

The “unsealing” was not supposed to take place until the time of the end: Daniel 12:12 “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.”

The 2,300 years was up in 1844 and the book was unsealed. There is a starting point from which the waiting in Dan 12:12 began, so if one knows how to do the math, the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days comes out to the exact year the Bab came to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah. This and the math is explained by Abdu’l-Baha in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL

 

[siti]

With all due respect - whether you know the Bible very well or not you can't have both of these:

it is obvious that there is no clear meaning of the verses.

the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days comes out to the exact year the Bab came to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah.

This is precisely the kind of Baha'i double-talk I've been complaining about in this and the "Great Beings" thread.

Anyway, we are going off topic again - the question was about the resurrection being physical or spiritual and my argument in the post you are responding to was that the early Christians certainly seemed to think it was something that had already happened by Pentecost 33 CE...i.e. that "this Jesus God hath raised up" - already by Pentecost of 33 CE - and that it was this resurrected Jesus that sent the promised "Comforter" - the Holy Spirit - right then in 33 CE, just weeks after Jesus had died and rose again. That is very clearly what the writer of Acts meant Peter to indicate in Acts of the Apostles 2 isn't it?

 

[CG Didymus]

She quoted scripture CG, to which she said she could see the spiritual metephor within.

She did not write scripture CG

It must be wearing you down by now, if that is the best you have got.

How are you by the way, making headway?

All the best,

Regards Tony

To say it is not very ambiguous would not be true, but the verses quoted don't answer everything and Christians have explained as alternative meaning. If verses say "touch me and see I have flesh and bone", then your verses can't be right as interpreted by the Baha'is. But the worst interpretation is Abdu'l Baha's, something about after three days they started living the life that Jesus taught and thus brought life back to the dead religion of Jesus? That does not even fit the gospel stories. They are not presented as symbolic. I think it is much more likely that they are totally false, then written in some mystic symbolic language.

 

[CG Didymus]

Be nice for this to stay on topic of the Resurrection and it would be really good to look at alternate views prior to the setting of the doctrine on this issue.

I do think that solid evidence may be found about Jesus. I would not be surprised.

Regards Tony

Are you saying that Abdu'l Baha's interpretation would not be on topic? Supposedly, it is the only correct interpretation of the event. Present it here and let's see how it fits. I think it makes the gospel stories ridiculous.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I always say I stumbled across it because that is exactly what happened... I was not looking for a religion or God at all back then, I literally stumbled across it and then I fell two weeks later... In the interim I kind of got mad at God, but I could never disprove that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be so now here I am 47 years later. Glad to see I am not alone.

I felt sorry that Baha’is were ‘misguided’ and then became ‘misguided’ myself. That was 40 years ago!

 

[Trailblazer]

In Luke 24:39-43 the risen Jesus definitely has a physically real body. In Acts 1:9-11, Jesus ascends into the clouds witnessed by the disciples. If only the spirit of Jesus ascended, the disciples would not be looking at the sky but at the dead physical body of Jesus on the ground. And it is not the angels who see Jesus ascend but the disciples. And finally, it is Jesus the Son of Man who is to return from the clouds as in the Olivet Discourse, not anyone else.

Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Nothing in these verses says anything about a physically real body... The angels asked the disciples why they were looking up into the sky as the Spirit of Jesus ascended. The angels knew that the same Spirit of Jesus would return in like manner as it had come down the first time. That is why they said in wonderment" "why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Baha'u'llah was the same Spirit of Jesus.

It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, and that is what the angels saw in Acts 1:10-11. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits. Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

If God intended the Bible to say that Jesus would return then why didn’t Jesus say He would return? Jesus never said He would return, never. He said His work was finished here and He was no more in the world (John 17:4, 11). He said you would see the Son of man come down from the clouds of heaven; He did not say “you will see me come down from the clouds of heaven.” Jesus and Baha'u'llah were both designated as the Son of man because they were the same Spirit of God.

All that said, if Christians want to continue waiting for the same Jesus to return there is nothing to stop them from doing so. I just think it might be prudent if they at least looked at all the OT and NT prophecies and how they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. Since they were fulfilled by Baha'ullah, they cannot also be fulfilled by Jesus. The prophecies and how they were fulfilled are in this book: William Sears, Thief in the Night.

 

[loverofhumanity]

But that Christianity taught things that Baha'is don't believe are true, including the physical resurrection.

Really to us as Baha’is it’s wholly unimportant. Christ taught the message of love and it is that message of love which is most important.

There are a lot of issues where we see things differently but they’re really unimportant compared to getting along. Christians I consider good, noble and upright people who I’m always honoured to host. To me their beliefs don’t change my attitude of love for them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So Lazarus was

Yes, can Baha'is agree with this basic view. Did the writers intend to say Jesus rose physically from the dead? I don't think they can otherwise they'd have to admit the writers were wrong, that is, wrong according to the Baha'is who believe the body of Jesus died and rotted away.

My understanding is Lazarus was spiritually not physically dead.

From Abdu’l- Baha He mentions Lazarus so this is more official.

...holding to literal interpretation and visible fulfillment of the text of the Holy Books is simply imitation of ancestral forms and beliefs; for when we perceive the reality of Christ, these texts and statements become clear and perfectly reconcilable with each other. Unless we perceive reality, we cannot understand the meanings of the Holy Books, for these meanings are symbolical and spiritual—such as, for instance, the raising of Lazarus, which has spiritual interpretation. (PUP)

I believe the writers of the Bible were inspired to write the way they did. I think they knew at the time that these things all had spiritual meanings but over 2,000 years we have lost just so much spirituality and become so materialistic that we find it easier to interpret everything literally.

A spiritual person would interpret things differently to a literalist. But at that time I believe they knew the inner spiritual definitions. It was a no brainer to them then but to us in this materialistic age we struggle with spiritual concepts.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

With all due respect - whether you know the Bible very well or not you can't have both of these:
Trailblazer said: ↑
it is obvious that there is no clear meaning of the verses.
Trailblazer said: ↑
the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days comes out to the exact year the Bab came to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah.

Why can't I have both of these?

Anyway, we are going off topic again - the question was about the resurrection being physical or spiritual and my argument in the post you are responding to was that the early Christians certainly seemed to think it was something that had already happened by Pentecost 33 CE...i.e. that "this Jesus God hath raised up" - already by Pentecost of 33 CE - and that it was this resurrected Jesus that sent the promised "Comforter" - the Holy Spirit - right then in 33 CE, just weeks after Jesus had died and rose again. That is very clearly what the writer of Acts meant Peter to indicate in Acts of the Apostles 2 isn't it?

I know what the early Christians thought about the Holy Spirit that was sent at Pentecost:
Acts 2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

However, that does not mean that the Comforter and the Spirit of truth referenced in John was the same Holy Spirit sent at Pentecost. An omnipotent God can send the Holy Spirit as many times as He wants to and to whomever He wants to.

 

[Trailblazer]

I felt sorry that Baha’is were ‘misguided’ and then became ‘misguided’ myself. That was 40 years ago!

Oh I see... You were a Christian before you were a Baha'i.
It happens.

 

[Trailblazer]

Read the account. It goes from Jesus getting killed, buried and then the whole thing about rising and appearing. So did the writers believe they were writing about actual events?

Maybe they did, but I have also heard that they wrote what they did because they had an agenda.

But nobody really knows what really happened.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you saying that Abdu'l Baha's interpretation would not be on topic? Supposedly, it is the only correct interpretation of the event. Present it here and let's see how it fits. I think it makes the gospel stories ridiculous.

No, I was talking about making it a thread about proof of the Baha'i Faith, lets discuss this event and answers given since it happened and lets us each make an informed decision.

Abdulbaha also said there can be many spiritual stories contained within scripture, He usually gave the most relevant explanation for the audience it was delivered to. He told us to meditate to discover the others possible meanings.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you saying that Abdu'l Baha's interpretation would not be on topic? Supposedly, it is the only correct interpretation of the event. Present it here and let's see how it fits. I think it makes the gospel stories ridiculous.

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?
Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42 we find: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

Observe that it is said, “The Son of man is in heaven,” while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.
Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

 

[oldbadger]

No you're not - you are reading it allegorically when it suits and literally when that supports your presuppositions. That is the whole basis of Baha'i reinterpretations of the Bible - you claim at one and the same time that the Biblical record that we now have is compromised by time and inaccurate transmission - so that any verses that seem to cast doubt on Baha'u'llah's claim to be the returned Messiah can conveniently be overlooked - and yet also that you hold to a literalist conservative Christian interpretation that holds - with almost zero genuine scriptural support - to a futurist eschatological position that permits Baha'u'llah to fulfill "prophecies" that were really accounts of events that had (when they were written down) already happened in antiquity.

You have not answered ANY of the questions I posed without attempting to straddle the impossibly wide chasm between literalist futurism and allegorical preterism - your arguments all fall flat if you take either position, but you are again trying (in the time-honored Baha'i fashion) to have your cake and ha'penny.

Bahai needs to somehow push a square peg into a round hole to achieve it's aim of showing that Bahai is at the top of the religious pyramid, and that all should forsake past faiths for the true way....... the Bahai way!

Such contrivance!

 

[oldbadger]

The key is what do you think is more reasonable? That is what you have to come to term with. Is it a Flesh Body that rises from the Dead, or that Soul and Mind free of the body are now raised to the Spiritual Life?

Regards Tony

Which simply means that you do not accept the fundamental Creed of Christianity, but have to somehow build a foundation for Christians to go forward to ..... Bahai.

'We do........ but we don't really' looks like a contrived but necessary approach to further the Bahai 'sell'.


If the cap fits.....................

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think it makes the gospel stories ridiculous.

What we have to filter through is why was it needed in AD325 for the Church to set Doctrine. It is obvious there were many views.

Also remember it could be Christianity entered winter early because these doctrine would stifle free thought on these passages.

Have a look at this as just one idea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Regards Tony

 

[oldbadger]

But if the Baha'is are right, it has HUGE implications for all of humanity... Why does nobody even seem to care that Baha'u'llah could be the return of Christ, the Promise of All Ages? That seems awfully strange to me.

If................. !
But I even doubt the 'if'..............

Pertinent to this thread, most Christians believe that Jesus' body rose from the grave and Jesus' resurrected body ascended to heaven and the same body of Jesus will return from heaven on a cloud. About 60% of people in the United States believe this. They are waiting for Jesus to return and fix everything that is wrong in the world, which means that humans do not have to do anything but wait for Jesus to return. Doesn't anyone see how this belief affects humanity? How can humanity progress when this many people believe Jesus is going to do everything for us when He returns?

Your 60% figure just is not accurate, but in any event I cannot see Christians leaving their faith for Bahaism once they realise that Bahauallah did not believe in a Resurrected Jesus.

Bahais don't believe in the existence of Evil either, which is another rather large void for Bahai to somehow breach.

 

[oldbadger]

Zero evidence? Do you have any idea how much evidence there is that demonstrates that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ? There is enough evidence to sink a ship. Too bad most people do not even bother to look at it.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!

Again, a man proclaims: ‘There lies a garden in which there are trees with broken branches bearing no fruit, and the leaves thereof are faded and yellow! In that garden, also, there are flowering plants with no blooms, and rose bushes withered and dying—go not into that garden!’ A just man, hearing this account of the garden, would not be content without seeing for himself whether it be true or not. He, therefore, enters the garden, and behold, he finds it well tilled; the branches of the trees are sturdy and strong, being also loaded with the sweetest of ripe fruits amongst the luxuriance of beautiful green leaves. The flowering plants are bright with many-hued blossoms; the rose bushes are covered with fragrant and lovely roses and all is verdant and well tended. When the glory of the garden is spread out before the eyes of the just man, he praises God that, through unworthy calumny, he has been led into a place of such wondrous beauty!” Paris Talks, pp. 103-104

You didn't quote the Bahai Prophet!
Only the claims of the Bahai Prophet could possibly be worth focusing upon.
You have no evidence at all. True.

 

[oldbadger]

I’m just lucky I guess somehow I stumbled across this Faith and accepted it.

When you stumble over things you should push them out of the way for the sake of those following behind.

 

[oldbadger]

I


Baha’u’llah did exactly what the Bible says the Spirit of truth would do... Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, .................................

That's another huge problem.
Christians don't believe that, they believe that Jesus is the Son of God.