Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[arthra]

Thanks for your post! My response to you is in italics. May the Lord bless you!

Deeje wrote

I am assuming that the Bab and Baha'u'llah's writings were not originally in English? So they required translation also....?

My reply:

Yes The Writings have been translated in many languages
Baha'i Prayers in many languages
under the authority of the Guardian and today the Universal House of Justice..also the interpretation of the Writings were likewise authorized by Abdul-Baha and the Guardian.

Deeje wrote:

If Baha'is accept all of what is considered by the many faiths as their sacred scripture, as coming from a single source, then that appears to create problems. It means that the holy writings were contradicting each other and pointing to different 'holy men' as commissioned by the same God in different eras. I personally do not see how that is remotely possible.

My reply:

We accept that all the major religions have a common Divine Source... The condition of the Holy Writings of the past have a variable history... as does the various translations of the Bible... but we do accept a common spiritual Source at the root of all the major religions. There are also we believe variations in the social teachings that were suited for various conditions. If you attended some inter-faith gatherings of late you may see a shared spiritual core that more believers today are recognizing.

Deeje wrote:

Baha'i seems like an attempt to be all things to all people.....a nice thought perhaps, but certainly not supported by Christian scripture. The Bible is about choices, not unifying the world through political involvement. Jesus said his kingdom was "no part of this world" and that this world is going to "pass away" at God's command.

My reply:

And yet what was the Lord's Prayer?

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven...."

The plan offered the rulers in the Tablets of Baha'u'llah See:

The Summons of the Lord of Hosts | Bahá’í Reference Library

recommended that they convene a world parliament and establish an International Court of Arbitration to settle disputes. While there have been a few "false starts" the foundations have been laid.

- Art

 

[Ben Avraham]

Ben, you've forgotten we Jews can point to countless prophecy fulfillment instances that verify that BOTH testaments are God's Word.

I can't believe a real Jew could write that! Perhaps a so-called "Jew-for-Jesus" or a "Messianic Jew?" Let's assume I have forgotten. Would you be so kind as to remind me of a couple of evidences for the NT to be taken as Word of God? For instance, do you think Mat. 1:18 could be called God's Word? It is about the Greek myth of the demigod, which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. How could that have ever been adopted as God's Word by the writers of the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Dear Adrian009,
I said: ↑
The other thing is that Jesus' followers were all down in the dumps until 3 days later. Why? Because the tomb was empty. Yes, an empty tomb, no body.
You said:
I think its most likely a metaphor rather than an actual event, though agree it could be both literally true and allegorical.
I said: ↑
Where did Jesus' body go? I'm sure you have an allegorical explanation for this too, but the NT writers made it sound like it was Jesus back from the dead.
You said:
I can tell where His body didn't go and that is up through the stratosphere through space. His Body was most likely in the possession of the Romans, Jews or Christians.

So all four gospels tell of people going to the tomb and it was empty. The writers sure seem to believe it is because he came back to life. Add to it the story where he says to touch him that he is not spirit but flesh and bone. So no way is the NT saying anything other than Jesus came back to life.

That's what the NT says. If it's a lie, fine. But, it is not presented as an allegory, And, since it wouldn't be understood until the 19th century, I ask you again... Has mainstream Christianity, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant... ever taught the "true" message from God? Rather then that false, mis-interpreted message that he died and was brought back to life to save sinners?

[/QUOTE]

You ask interesting questions. Lets say the authors of the Gospels truly believed the accounts of the empty tomb and that Jesus had returned in the flesh. How many were eye witness accounts to the life of Jesus? How many had witnessed the empty tomb and touched him like Thomas so they knew He was flesh and bone?

If the experiences were not first hand then from where did they hear this account of events? Could it have been through the preaching of Peter and Paul? What about the issue of the 3 synoptic gospels and why they are so similar.

What about those who have translated the Gospels from one language to another? Could that have had an influence?

Included is an extract from a tablet written by Abdu'l-Baha for your consideration:

"As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses."

Having said that there are verses about the infallible Divine inspiration of the apostles animating the sacred texts. I do not believe they would lie or deliberately mislead others when writing the Gospels. However could they have genuinely believed that Jesus literally came back from the dead? Its a question worth exploring.

Then there's the question of which books made it into the NT and why as well as the rulings from the Council of Nicaea. What did the other some of the other writers say that didn't make the NTs standard? How about historical records of that time?

Lets keep talking C G Didymus wherever it all leads.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is too much evidence for Jesus's resurrection to reject it as fact.

What is the evidence from your perspective?

 

[Dawnofhope]

There are already all kinds of opinions regarding this question on here so all I can give is my own personal opinion. I do not believe that YESHUA the Nazarene was the messiah and there are far too many reasons to go into for me to argue about. That being said, I believe that his disciples believed that he was somehow super-human. He obviously was charismatic and inspired, within a very short time of his death, narratives about his life and deeds that are more stories of religious salvation than of actual Jewish history. The stories of his resurrection are not clear cut. Paul, who probably never met him, says that YESHUA rose from the dead and thereby affected human salvation from death and hell. The evangelists have two stories about a witnessing of his resurrection, one by Mary Magdelene and one by Peter. His personality must have been overwhelmingly powerful and his promises of an approaching messianic era in which death would be abolished so dramatic that, after his execution as a criminal by Romans, as far as his followers were concerned, he DID arise from death. Jewish people were eager to believe that the messiah had actually, at last come to save them from the Romans that they believed the story and it grew until it became a dogma of Christianity wherein it is actually no longer YESHUA but Jesus Christ as God who resurrected. There are many stories involving the death and resurrection of gods, and this is the one that caught on and was adopted by our culture.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I really appreciate that even though you do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, you are able to see some positives about His life. I agree that He did not fulfil all the prophecies in the OT but I believe He did fulfil some. Like you I agree He did not literally rise from the dead and your analysis of why this myth has evolved is well grounded.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If you don't believe in the death and resurrection of Christ as a true and necessary fulfilment of God's purposes and fulfilling the requirements Law in order that you may return to God's presence in perfection just by faith in Jesus without sin or concern for sin fully entitled as His child to all the goodness of God and abundance of heaven and equipped and authorised to bring heaven on earth in Jesus' name then debating that point in term of its validity or probability is mute and redundant. By faith, like a child, just because daddy said so and you believe it - everything else is just exploring doubt and tho God made a mansion with many rooms He did not make room for doubt.

So you advocate an unquestioning faith? Is that not how the church fell into disrepute for believing the earth to be the centre of the universe and arresting someone who was prepared to question?

 

[Dawnofhope]

While the Resurrection is a core belief, I'm not sure it has yet to be understood fully as yet. My own heretical spin is that the event was real, demonstrating God's willingness to intervene directly into the natural world in accordance with his will, but there must therefore be a 'spiritual' resurrection that applies to the faithful. That would offer the one thing tradition is unable to offer. An absolute proof for faith. And that is what I will call true religion!

Thank you for your post. I believe in God's power and omnipotence too as well as His power to intervene miraculously in human affairs. However there is a scientific conundrum if we are to accept that Jesus literally rose into the sky/heavens.

 

[Dawnofhope]

-------------
I believe that God resurrected Jesus from the death state. He gave life to Jesus again, but that life was not in a human body, not the body that was given as a ransom for the release from the Adamic sin of Adam. Jesus was raised up from the dead as a spirit creature, as he had been prior to being sent to earth by His God and FAther to provide the sacrifice for sin that would release mankind and give them a chance to live again via the resurrection 'in the last day'. Jesus materialized in human bodies after being resurrected by God, to appear to his disciples to prove to them that God had resurrected him, and they watched as he ascended into the earthly heavens, where a cloud then obscured him from their vision as he then entered into the realm of God to sit at the right hand of God until the appointed time for cleansing the nations and abyssing the one having the means to cause death, Satan the devil and his demons, and then the resurrection of all in the memorial tombs to have a chance to prove their loyalty to God without Satan's influence, and without inherited sin. John 5:28-29, Proverbs 2:21-22; Psalm 37:29; Matthew 5:5; Acts 2:22-24; Hebrews 10:12; Acts 2:32-33. Just my opinion on the matter.

Thank you for sharing your opinion and welcome to RF. You will be pleased to know that there are some active JW members posing on this forum. I'm a Baha'i

The Bahá’í Faith - The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

Bahá'í Faith - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

The historicity of Jesus has been a question posed for quite a while. Would you suggest that Apollonius of Tyana was a real person? WE learn about Apollonius from one main source Philostratus. Apollonius was supposed to have lived within a similar time frame as Jesus.

There are some interesting fragments that are extra Biblical... "Christ the Magician".

See:

Earliest reference describes Christ as 'magician'

Then there's an ancient appellation :

The name used by Tertullus survives into Rabbinic and modern Hebrew as notzrim (נוצרים) a standard Hebrew term for "Christian", and also into the Quran and modern Arabic as nasara (plural of nasrani "Christians").

Nazarene (sect) - Wikipedia

Since the references to Jesus are vatried in Coptic, Koine Greek, etc. I would lean toward suggesting Jesus has more historicity say than Apollonius as there is only one source for him while there are many more sources relating to Jesus and Jesus after all was not a Governor or a High Priest of the time but a wandering Preacher Who wrote nothing except what He inscribed on the sand...that we know of.

Thank you for your post Art. Like many of us I'm here to learn and have interesting discussions with new people. There is obviously some sharing of my beliefs and the Faith we both share. Learning about the historic Jesus through writers other than the NT authors is of increasing interest. Of course I've come across Josephus but any other sources you would recommend would be appreciated.

 

[psychoslice]

What is the evidence from your perspective?

I have to say here, what is your evidence ?.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe that Jesus rose in both the spirit and physically. If you notice that when Simon Peter went into the empty tomb of Jesus he saw the cloth that covered Jesus still in place so this indicates that Jesus rose in spirit through the cloth. Yet the stone that blocked the tomb was rolled away which points to Jesus being a physical as well. When he appeared to the disciples they were in a locked room and Jesus suddenly appears and stands in the midst of them. Then he says to Thomas who is doubting that Jesus had risen to put his finger in the hole of his wound. He also states he is hungry and asks for something to eat which indicates he is a physical entity. The bible states that our physical bodies will also rise just as Jesus did. So somehow Jesus was a spirit in that he could suddenly appear and disappear out of nowhere and move through objects in our world, yet was also became a physical being that could be touched and needed to eat.

Bible Gateway passage: John 20 - New International Version
Bible Gateway passage: Luke 24 - New International Version

It is an interesting paradox this Jesus that appears to be both physical and Spirit like, at times unrecognisable to those who loved Him most and then opening the minds of is disciples to scripture. The accounts seem contradictory in places so I find it hard to read as a story that is literally unfolding, rather allegory and metaphor.

Thank you for your post

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have to say here, what is your evidence ?.

A man called Jesus has risen from the dead and ascended through the stratosphere to be with God in the sky. Even with a God that can perform miracles the leap of logic to faith required is too great. Similarly with a literal interpretation of creation myth and accepting the earth to be the centre of the universe, the evidence provided by even a rudimentary understanding of todays science is overwhelming. The resurrection could not have been physical IMHO.

 

[psychoslice]

A man called Jesus has risen from the dead and ascended through the stratosphere to be with God in the sky. Even with a God that can perform miracles the leap of logic to faith required is too great. Similarly with a literal interpretation of creation myth and accepting the earth to be the centre of the universe, the evidence provided by even a rudimentary understanding of todays science is overwhelming. The resurrection could not have been physical IMHO.

Yes I agree, it certainly wasn't physical, but it sad that so many believe it to be literal, its like their children who need to go off the milk and onto the meat (truth).

 

[Dawnofhope]

The real core Christian doctrine is The Crucifixion, by which Jesus shed his blood for the redemption of mankind's sin, and which provided the re-opening of the Gates of Heaven which Adam and Eve had closed by their sin of disobedience. But many man-gods had come and claimed to be the Messiah, and all had died and none resurrected. So how do we know that Jesus was who he said he was, and that his sacrifice on the cross really did what he claimed it would do, as foretold in the Last Supper? It is The Resurrection that then become the centerpiece of Christian belief, as it 'proves' that Jesus is who he claimed: God himself in the flesh.

There are many problems with the doctrine of The Resurrection, but the clincher for me is the account by St. Paul, in which he claims that there were 500 eyewitnesses to the event, some of whom were still living when Paul wrote those words. Now, if you were Paul, and you knew there were living eyewitnesses, you would regard these people as Gold from Heaven. You would immediately seek them out to interview them before they pass on for a first hand account of what they had witnessed. But Paul just brushed past them, never giving them a second thought.

Secondly, there is an uncanny resemblance of the '500 eyewitnesses' scenario found in Buddhism:

"Buddhist tradition states that shortly after the passing away of the Buddha five hundred of his Arhats and disciples met in council at Rajagaha for the purpose of recalling to mind the truths they had heard directly from their hero during the forty-five years of his teachings.

The Coptic biblical text actually identifies the 500 as 'Indian Brahmans'!

In short, we find opportunity, motive, method, location and scriptural evidence, for a profound and detailed Buddhist influence in Christianity's origins. That it was so cannot be doubted"

Buddhist Influence in Christian Origins

There are other signs that this story is a concoction, made to fit the story of the very real crucified Yeshua in order to transform it into a miracle that never occurred. Instead, there are indications that Jesus survived The Crucifixion, and was spirited away to the Buddhist monastery at Hemis in the Himalayas, where he was healed and lived out the rest of his days, and where the monks knew him as 'our beloved St. Issa' who had lived and taught with them during Jesus's mysterious 18 missing years.

"The Resurrection" and "The Ascension" are just what The Crucifixion needed to validate it as 'authentic'. Unfortunately, it's myth-like qualities stick out awkwardly here and there, rendering the story a fantasy, though a cleverly fabricated one. Christianity would actually be much better off without these two, and instead present Yeshua as a real-life flesh and blood man who was spiritually enlightened, yet who died just as any man would die.

It happens that there exists a tomb in Srinigar, Kashimir called 'The Tomb of Jesus' (Roza Bal)
with an inscription reading 'Yuz Asaf' as the person entombed there, and which means “Leader of the Healed”/"Son of Joseph". The head of the body faces West, typical of a Jewish burial, and not that of an Easterner, who are buried with the head facing East. At the foot of the tomb is an artist's casting of two footprints, each having a single would, typical of a Roman crucifixion, in which a single spike was driven through both feet, one laid over the other.

What an interesting account. I'm truly amazed at the diversity of ideas and mysteries surrounding the story of Christ's resurrection. Its clearly pregnant with meaning and spiritual allusions for anyone who takes the time to consider the inner significance of this story.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Though I noticed this Tread some while ago, I hesitated to answer, as it seems to be central to Christian belief.



All Christian writings and scripture including the Gnostic fragments. All seem to confirm that Jesus was seen alive after his death. Though interestingly there is no story that actually tells of of his Actual arising.

The nearest to that is the story of Mary Magdalene finding the empty tomb and being accosted by the risen Jesus. This leads onto the subsequent “Checking him out” and him showing them his wounds.
It seems strange that even Mary did not recognise him at first
This raises various questions, that would require answers, to establish such an occurrence today.

Was he ever really Dead?
Who opened the Tomb?
Where did he get his new clothes from?
Where was he during those three days?
Is three days sufficient to heal his wounds for him to be able to walk?
Was the person on the cross, the same person who showed his wounds.?

Early documents, Like the Didache, are no help, as it does not mention the “risen Christ” at all. But then it does not mention any Biblical stories either. But more importantly it does not even allude to the death and resurrection in any of its rituals, or teaching of new recruits to the new Judeo/Christian congregations. So for them at least it was not central to their observance of Christianity.
In the same way the Didache make no mention of the virgin Birth, the Trinity, nor the fulfilment of any prophecies.

There is no doubt that all the Biblical stories covering such aspects of Jesus life and teaching were circulating amongst that first generation of Christians, and were in the process of being written down. What we do not know is the emphasis they gave in their day to day observance.

We do know from the Didache that The main focus of these Christian groups was Eschatological in nature. They were in expectation of the imminent coming of the Lord (God) at the end of times. The Lords prayer and the form of the Eucharist, and every thing they did, was to prepare themselves for that coming. The one they expected to come again was the Lord God not Jesus.

With in a very short time, there seems to have been a tidal shift in this entire focus.

The new Jesus cult changed from, Jesus being the Son of God, to the Pauline view of sharing the nature of God. And being not so much the Religion taught by Jesus, but by becoming the religion of Jesus.

To this day the scriptures we find in the Bible. Are very much selected to establish Jesus as God. By confirmation of Prophecy or by stories of miracles, the virgin birth, and his resurrection.

Even the nature of the Eucharist and Lord's prayer has change from being Eschatological, and the gathering of the people into his church, to becoming about the Body and Blood of Christ, and the Lords prayer more about “ God us and now”.

From this you can see why I hesitated to answer..... My views share a somewhat primitive and Unitarian Christianity. With the major focus being On God, as Jesus taught us.

So to the OP's question “Did Jesus physically rise from the dead or this an allegorical story?”
I see the answer as being simply, one of the “Mysteries” that are unexplainable, in the same way as the virgin birth, and the Trinity. They only become essential beliefs if Jesus is promoted to the position God. rather than a son of God.

Thank you for sharing your well considered views. I can see you have a passion and deep knowledge for the mysterious and Holy personage of Jesus, who I agree best suits the designation "Son of God" rather than God in the Flesh. I think you are very wise to see the story as a mystery and leave it at that.

 

[psychoslice]

In truth we are all the Sons and Daughters of God, Jesus never had the monopoly on that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes I agree, it certainly wasn't physical, but it sad that so many believe it to be literal, its like their children who need to go off the milk and onto the meat (truth).

As a metaphor it has great power and beauty and stands alongside the story of Christ's crucifixion. It simply emphasises the transformative power of Christ's Teaching and its capacity to breath new life into those who have lost hope.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In truth we are all the Sons and Daughters of God, Jesus never had the monopoly on that.

That is my belief too and once we free ourselves from some of the rigid ideas of the past we are better able to see the common threads throughout the main world religions.

 

[psychoslice]

As a metaphor it has great power and beauty and stands alongside the story of Christ's crucifixion. It simply emphasises the transformative power of Christ's Teaching and its capacity to breath new life into those who have lost hope.

Yes well said, do you believe Jesus was a literal figure, or a pointer ?.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes well said, do you believe Jesus was a literal figure, or a pointer ?.

I do believe He was a real person. I see the gospels as being very spiritual stories written for the purpose of inspiring the faithful. John 20:31

When we start to read the gospels as if the authors are historians recording literal fact, we are in trouble.