Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[Dawnofhope]

About their ideas of an afterlife.

Jesus was Jewish. He would have taught that all the dead go to Sheol, and await final judgment.

I think we have a lot of misunderstanding, and add-ons, after Jesus' death.

*

We do have add-ons, and development of ideas. There is certainly misunderstanding.

I'm not aware of anything Jesus specifically said to clearly support the concept of Sheol and final judgement. Are you? Furthermore the Jewish concept of an afterlife seemed to have developed/evolved from Moses until before Christ.

 

[Milton Platt]

Did Jesus physically rise from the dead or this an allegorical story?

Perhaps its both and maybe neither?

What is the best way of understanding this core Christian belief?

Spiritual reality sounds like an oxymoron to me.

 

[Ingledsva]

We do have add-ons, and development of ideas. There is certainly misunderstanding.

I'm not aware of anything Jesus specifically said to clearly support the concept of Sheol and final judgement. Are you? Furthermore the Jewish concept of an afterlife seemed to have developed/evolved from Moses until before Christ.

He was a Jew. The NT says he spoke/taught in the Temples.

He would not have been allowed to do that if he was teaching something else.

If you look at works by religious scholars - they say we have several words, - translated as hell, - which actually refer to Sheol, and other places, - not Hell.

The NT was in Greek, and “hell” is actually “Hades” in the Greek. Hades is defined as “the common receptacle of disembodied spirits” (Online Bible Greek Lexicon); “the abode of departed spirits” (New American Standard Greek Lexicon); “the place of departed souls” (Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words).

In other word Sheol, not a burning Hell.

And don't forget they chose what would be in the NT, and destroyed contradicting texts.

*

 

[Dawnofhope]

Spiritual reality sounds like an oxymoron to me.

If you don't believe in spirituality being real, then of course it is an oxymoron.

Nice cat btw.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Seeing will not become belief. It will become knowledge.

But the Jew will get a free pass, won't they? They will be saved when they see Jesus and convert, but I assume we will not. It will be too late for us. For some reason.

And concerning the boat: there are so many. What makes you sure you are on the right one?

Ciao

- viole

1. Seeing is knowledge, not belief--but consider the method and manner of the end times seeing.

2. Jewish people get no "free pass"--they are the center of the Armageddon conflict and 2/3 of the Jewish people in Israel will perish. If you find the 2/3 and 1/3 number alarming, it parallels the Holocaust in yet another "Bible coincidence".

3. I chose to become a Religion major after conversion. I've studied quite a few boats in-depth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I beleive Jesus does takeaway the sins of those offspring of Jacob who receive Him as Lord and Savior. I believe I have met more than one that has. I have also met those who have not.

I believe when the name Jacob is used here it means decsndants of Jacob but it is a general statement that does not necessarily mean all the descendents of Jacob.

Thank you. I find the word "ALL" in this an other passages an important helping word.

 

[Cephus]

If you don't believe in spirituality being real, then of course it is an oxymoron.

But why should anyone believe in spirituality? What evidence exists for it? If you're going to claim that spirituality exists in the real world, then there needs to be some objective means of demonstrating it. Funny that nobody ever manages to do so.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But why should anyone believe in spirituality? What evidence exists for it? If you're going to claim that spirituality exists in the real world, then there needs to be some objective means of demonstrating it. Funny that nobody ever manages to do so.

Hi Cephus,

My name is Adrian.

I expect religionists do provide you with evidence but it does not satisfy you.

To answer that question we need to consider what spirituality is and what it isn't.

If it considers the love we have for others and our capacity to live a principled life then there is little to debate.

If it concerns the extraordinary aspects of the religious founders then we would need to consider:
(1) The example of their lives
(2) Their teachings along with those teachings capacity to positively transform the lives of those who they come in contact
(3) Prophecy

I see you do not have a religion and reading some of your posts have the impression you do not care too much for religion. Have you always felt this way? Have you ever believed in a religion?

 

[Dawnofhope]

He was a Jew. The NT says he spoke/taught in the Temples.

He would not have been allowed to do that if he was teaching something else.

If you look at works by religious scholars - they say we have several words, - translated as hell, - which actually refer to Sheol, and other places, - not Hell.

The NT was in Greek, and “hell” is actually “Hades” in the Greek. Hades is defined as “the common receptacle of disembodied spirits” (Online Bible Greek Lexicon); “the abode of departed spirits” (New American Standard Greek Lexicon); “the place of departed souls” (Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words).

In other word Sheol, not a burning Hell.

And don't forget they chose what would be in the NT, and destroyed contradicting texts.

*

I can not dispute anything you have said.

However in regards to Jesus, if His claims to represent God are true, then He had the authority to overturn laws, even those brought by Moses. He had the capacity and authority to bring our understanding to a new level. I do not believe that Jesus was physical resurrected, but the narrative around His resurrection is to assist us develop a new understanding of the after life. The terms heaven, hell, and resurrection all have symbolic significance to develop that understanding. They almost certainly can not be taken literally, because we are left with Hell as a physical location below the earth, heaven above the clouds, and Jesus ascending into the stratosphere. It just doesn't work in an age of science and reason anymore than the Jewish concept of Shoel.

How does that work for you? Do you belief in God and His prophets?

 

[Cephus]

I expect religionists do provide you with evidence but it does not satisfy you.

No, actually they don't. They provide me with unsupported claims and personal interpretations. They have no evidence.

To answer that question we need to consider what spirituality is and what it isn't.

Well, how you personally define spirituality, at least.

If it considers the love we have for others and our capacity to live a principled life then there is little to debate.

That's not spirituality though, that's something else. You're taking something that exists and simply applying another label. The dictionary defines spirituality as "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things." Let's stick with that.

I see you do not have a religion and reading some of your posts have the impression you do not care too much for religion. Have you always felt this way? Have you ever believed in a religion?

Yes, I spent many years as a Christian. Then I got sane.

 

[CG Didymus]

... I do not believe that Jesus was physical resurrected, but the narrative around His resurrection is to assist us develop a new understanding of the after life...

How do you find time to keep up with all these threads you're posting in? Anyway, way back when, I asked about the post resurrection narrative... They are presented as historical, real events. So you have Jesus coming into town and eventually being killed... The story goes on. Why would it switch to being something symbolic at that point?

If you tell me the resurrection was a hoax, that would be easier to believe. However, Christians always come back with, "Yeah, then where is the body? The body is gone, because he is gone. He rose from the dead and walked out of the grave and ascended into heaven."

Since we are not talking about the ascension, let's just focus on the resurrection. Why is it important to Christians? The story I get from them is that by rising from the dead he proved to have the power to forgive sins.... something only God is supposedly able to do. Therefore, somehow, to them, he must be God.

Why then is it so unimportant to Baha'is? What do you say? Things like... It's not scientific? It's a superstitious type of belief? A person dead for that long can't be revived? But what's so important about it being true or not? There's other miracles. Do you believe those? Can a man walk on water? Doesn't sound physically possible to me. So why this one?

I think it might be that those who want Christianity to be wrong have a good excuse now. "Look, I knew it. Jesus died like everybody else. Those apostles tried to pull a fast one over us." But it also brings Jesus down to an even level with all the other manifestations. "They were all great spiritual teachers, and that's what is important, not some foolish miracle."

But the quote from Abdu'l Baha seems so weak... that after three days the disciples started spreading his words of love and compassion and that's the resurrection? No, they were convinced they saw him and spoke with him and that he was alive. So why did they think that? And, if it didn't happen, why did they pretend it did?

 

[Dawnofhope]

How do you find time to keep up with all these threads you're posting in? Anyway, way back when, I asked about the post resurrection narrative... They are presented as historical, real events. So you have Jesus coming into town and eventually being killed... The story goes on. Why would it switch to being something symbolic at that point?

I agree that we have a post resurrection narrative early on that portrays Jesus having been literally resurrected from the dead. Reading Paul 1 Corinthians 15 makes this clear and we know the enormous influence Paul had on the development of early Christian theology. However its simply another allegorical story like that of Noah's ark and the flood, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and the creation of the world in 6 days. Whether its literally true or not is irrelevant, its the spiritual message that these stories convey. These were all plausible stories at one time but in modern times they are not.

If you tell me the resurrection was a hoax, that would be easier to believe. However, Christians always come back with, "Yeah, then where is the body? The body is gone, because he is gone. He rose from the dead and walked out of the grave and ascended into heaven."

Its obviously disturbing for those that have believed the resurrection story to be literally true to now believe that it never actually happened. But you could say that about other stories in the bible too. The resurrection story is particularly difficult for Christians to deconstruct as it has become such a cornerstone of Christian belief.

Since we are not talking about the ascension, let's just focus on the resurrection. Why is it important to Christians? The story I get from them is that by rising from the dead he proved to have the power to forgive sins.... something only God is supposedly able to do. Therefore, somehow, to them, he must be God.

Having a God that is All-loving, Compassionate, and Forgiving can best be understood by other stories in the Gospels such as the good Samaritan, Jesus asking God to forgive the Romans when dying on the cross, and preventing the women of ill-repute being stoned to death. In fact much of the gospels emphasises these qualities of God strongly. I can't see why a physical resurrection is required for God to be able to forgive sins.

Why then is it so unimportant to Baha'is? What do you say? Things like... It's not scientific? It's a superstitious type of belief? A person dead for that long can't be revived? But what's so important about it being true or not? There's other miracles. Do you believe those? Can a man walk on water? Doesn't sound physically possible to me. So why this one?

The resurrection is enormously important to Baha'is and an indispensable part of any of the religion.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 220-222

However we longer require the literal resurrection story to understand its true meaning and this particular story, like the other stories I mentioned from Genesis, can now be easily disproved.

Of course Jesus could walk on water. Whether or not He did, I don't know. Its a great metaphor for being able to rise above our lower nature and walk the spiritual life though.

I think it might be that those who want Christianity to be wrong have a good excuse now. "Look, I knew it. Jesus died like everybody else. Those apostles tried to pull a fast one over us." But it also brings Jesus down to an even level with all the other manifestations. "They were all great spiritual teachers, and that's what is important, not some foolish miracle."

There is free will and we have the choice to believe or not. It is a privilege to have faith but that faith has to have the right foundation. Exalting one Manifestation of God and rejecting the others is no longer an acceptable foundation for Faith in God. If you or I want to find a reason to disbelieve then arguments such as the one you mentioned become attractive.

But the quote from Abdu'l Baha seems so weak... that after three days the disciples started spreading his words of love and compassion and that's the resurrection? No, they were convinced they saw him and spoke with him and that he was alive. So why did they think that? And, if it didn't happen, why did they pretend it did?

I suspect the issue is being able to accept Abdu'l-Baha's words with the eye of faith.

Resurrection

 

[Dawnofhope]

No, actually they don't. They provide me with unsupported claims and personal interpretations. They have no evidence.

OK. So you have rejected the validity of their evidence and called them unsupported claims and personal interpretations. I don't know what evidence you looked at. I see you have a U-tube site where you have put a great deal of energy into promoting atheism and rejecting Christianity and Islam. Other than rejecting the evidence that is presented to you, can you prove categorically that God does not exist?

Well, how you personally define spirituality, at least.

I define spirituality broadly and that is valid. I think you are using reductionist type arguments where you define spirituality in very narrow terms and then reject it. Its like a straw man argument. Richard Dawkins does this a lot.

That's not spirituality though, that's something else. You're taking something that exists and simply applying another label. The dictionary defines spirituality as "the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things." Let's stick with that.

Lets try broadening it out a little.

Spirituality - Wikipedia

Yes, I spent many years as a Christian. Then I got sane.

I was a Christian and then became a Baha'i. I left Christianity as there were intellectual problems with it that I could not resolve. However I found the position of atheism problematic as it ignores the existence and profound influence of religion, both positive and negative. I find atheists just want to talk about the negatives, and rationalise the positives as having nothing to do with religion in the first place.

I became a Baha'i and that made the most sense to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

...I agree that we have a post resurrection narrative early on that portrays Jesus having been literally resurrected from the dead. Reading Paul 1 Corinthians 15 makes this clear and we know the enormous influence Paul had on the development of early Christian theology. However its simply another allegorical story like that of Noah's ark and the flood, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and the creation of the world in 6 days. Whether its literally true or not is irrelevant, its the spiritual message that these stories convey. These were all plausible stories at one time but in modern times they are not.

...I suspect the issue is being able to accept Abdu'l-Baha's words with the eye of faith.

Resurrection

Here's part of the quote from Abdu'l-Baha's:
"The CAUSE [emphasis added] of Christ was like a lifeless body; and, when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the CAUSE [emphasis added] of Christ of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting his counsels into practice, and ARISING [emphasis added] to serve him,... his religion found life, his teachings and admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the CAUSE [emphasis added] of Christ was like a lifeless body, until the life and bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it."

Why then the narrative? If it wasn't a true historical occurrence then how is that not deception? How many people gave their lives because they were taught, and could read it for themselves in the NT, that Jesus had come back to life?

In Abdu'l-Baha's statement he says that "after three days"? What happened? In the gospels, nothing happened. They really didn't get going on teaching until Pentecost. And for the Christian that was significant because that's when the promised Holy Spirit descended on them.

Now since we are talking God here, we have to believe anything is possible to prove a point. So why not raise Jesus from the dead to show that people with evil motives can't defeat God's messenger?

 

[Ingledsva]

I can not dispute anything you have said.

However in regards to Jesus, if His claims to represent God are true, then He had the authority to overturn laws, even those brought by Moses. He had the capacity and authority to bring our understanding to a new level. I do not believe that Jesus was physical resurrected, but the narrative around His resurrection is to assist us develop a new understanding of the after life. The terms heaven, hell, and resurrection all have symbolic significance to develop that understanding. They almost certainly can not be taken literally, because we are left with Hell as a physical location below the earth, heaven above the clouds, and Jesus ascending into the stratosphere. It just doesn't work in an age of science and reason anymore than the Jewish concept of Shoel.

How does that work for you? Do you belief in God and His prophets?

Since when does a CLAIM to represent a God, entitle you to change that God's word?

If he came to overturn laws he would have said so. We are told that he said he did NOT come to change the Laws. He said he came to fulfill. - He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah whom was to bring the end.

I am Agnostic. I was raised Christian, and I do not believe in the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is far too human in his evil actions, for the book or it's contents about that God, to be anything more than just human thoughts, and not from any actual God.

*

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since when does a CLAIM to represent a God, entitle you to change that God's word?

This line of argument seems to pop up all over the place. It seems clear that many of the laws of the OT had become obsolete. eg Stoning someone to death if they worked on the Sabbath. I believe that Jesus was referring to being the Promised one in the OT and the Jews obligation to recognise Him and follow Him in regards to Matthew 5:17-20

If he came to overturn laws he would have said so. We are told that he said he did NOT come to change the Laws. He said he came to fulfill. - He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah whom was to bring the end.

He spoke through His actions in the healing the sick on the Sabbath, preventing the stoning of a woman of ill-repute and even overturning the law on divorce. If He had been anymore explicit His Ministry wouldn't have lasted 3 months let alone 3 years.

I am Agnostic. I was raised Christian, and I do not believe in the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is far too human in his evil actions, for the book or it's contents about that God, to be anything more than just human thoughts, and not from any actual God.

Thank you for sharing. There are many ex-Christians on this site. Funny thing that.

I'm an ex-Christian too, who became a Baha'i. I appreciate you sharing your views with me. How come you left Christianity?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why then the narrative? If it wasn't a true historical occurrence then how is that not deception? How many people gave their lives because they were taught, and could read it for themselves in the NT, that Jesus had come back to life?

Religion is full of myths that can't be readily distinguished from real life.

In Abdu'l-Baha's statement he says that "after three days"? What happened? In the gospels, nothing happened. They really didn't get going on teaching until Pentecost. And for the Christian that was significant because that's when the promised Holy Spirit descended on them.

Clearly a great deal had happened judging by the numbers in attendance at Pentecost and the hearts of many being prepared to accept Christ.

Now since we are talking God here, we have to believe anything is possible to prove a point. So why not raise Jesus from the dead to show that people with evil motives can't defeat God's messenger?

There's no doubt that God had the power to achieve it. He could miraculously appear to you and I right now and we would be forced to change our beliefs. But where would be the freewill in that?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Christianity seems very meaningful with a physically resurrected Christ to me. If the sole purpose of Christianity was to teach people that they could be physically resurrected then you would have a point.

I believe it has to be compared to the OT. I believe the restoration of mankind after Adam is something which it does teach. That the flesh has to die to change into what cannot die on resurrection.
Christ had a physical flesh body though without sin it had to die and then rise to a body which could never die.
In Acts 7 we see after he ascended to the Father he is seated on Gods right hand.
We clearly see in the OT not to take or add anything to it. The same in Revelations.

What is there for all to see is that the disciples after Christ died was not expecting an initial resurrection. So when he is risen they are as everyone expects surprised.
We see that Christ appears to them before ascending to the Father and at the death of Stephen both he and the Father are seen by Stephen through the power
of the Holy Spirit.

If Christ did not rise what is there really to his death without resurrection.
Christ I believe did rise from the dead and Lazarus too. Also the dead which came to life at that time.

Matthew 27:51-53King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


I believe, correct me, if I am wrong. That you actually give credence to the book of Matthew. Here before you we see the dead rose up.
Which is why I believe Jesus rose from the dead and so will all who believe in him.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts @RESOLUTION

I believe it has to be compared to the OT. I believe the restoration of mankind after Adam is something which it does teach. That the flesh has to die to change into what cannot die on resurrection.

This is a commonly held belief amongst many Christians, but I see many problems with it.

Christ had a physical flesh body though without sin it had to die and then rise to a body which could never die.

It needs to be noted that scripture refers to Jesus as being the son of man, more than the 'Son of God'. Both are true but Jesus had his human side as evidenced by His anger at the temple.

In Acts 7 we see after he ascended to the Father he is seated on Gods right hand.

This is the problem. The story is part of a narrative where heaven is above the clouds and hell below, but this is not true. Besides "flesh can not inherit the kingdom of God".

We clearly see in the OT not to take or add anything to it. The same in Revelations.

I am not removing anything from the bible, simply looking at the scripture we both believe in with a different understanding.

What is there for all to see is that the disciples after Christ died was not expecting an initial resurrection. So when he is risen they are as everyone expects surprised.

It is really hard to know. None of the gospel writers provided eye witness accounts of the key events. There are no independent records that verify an actual physical resurrection took place. Only Christians report a resurrection experience. Paul compared his experience with the resurrected Christ along with the other alleged sightings but Paul's experience of Christ was hearing His voice on the road to Damascus.

If Christ did not rise what is there really to his death without resurrection.

The eternal life of the soul of course.

Christ I believe did rise from the dead and Lazarus too. Also the dead which came to life at that time.

Matthew 27:51-53King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Apparently none of this made the news and it would of if it had really happened. It appears much more likely to be metaphorical in keeping with the type of mystical experiences that are described at Pentecost and prophesised by the prophet Joel.

believe, correct me, if I am wrong. That you actually give credence to the book of Matthew. Here before you we see the dead rose up.
Which is why I believe Jesus rose from the dead and so will all who believe in him.

We believe in the same God, Jesus, and bible which is why I believe Jesus's resurrection was a spiritual, not physical reality.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts @RESOLUTION

This is a commonly held belief amongst many Christians, but I see many problems with it.

See, or told? Find it in scripture or belief outside the bible and God?
There lies the problem no problems revealed and no recourse of action to why the belief held. It is merely a comment of opinion which has no value in the teachings of God?

It needs to be noted that scripture refers to Jesus as being the son of man, more than the 'Son of God'. Both are true but Jesus had his human side as evidenced by His anger at the temple.

Are you saying God does not become angry?
King James Bible
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

There is normal anger which is human and righteous anger called righteous indignation. Anger at the things of God being used for wrong purposes or breaking of gods laws.
Christ anger was righteous indignation not human anger. Hence he was the only one who was angry.
Psalm 69:9King James Version (KJV)
9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Clearly not anger of the flesh but righteous anger due to his divine nature.

This is the problem. The story is part of a narrative where heaven is above the clouds and hell below, but this is not true. Besides "flesh can not inherit the kingdom of God".

Would that be the flesh before the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the saving grace of God or the flesh as those still dead?
You see when Christ comes into his Kingdom all flesh will change. But those who have the Spirit have life. And God clearly states in his word.

20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.

21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart.

22 For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.

Take the sword which the Spirit gives



17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

The flesh does not inherit it is changed but the Spirit of God, whom Christ spoke about and said: " My words are Spirit and they are life"
It is the Spirit which brings life to the body and soul.

I am not removing anything from the bible, simply looking at the scripture we both believe in with a different understanding.

It isn't a different understanding I have seen nothing to back up your usage of the things you state.
I have provided several proofs and shown the understanding as the Word of God and from God.

It is really hard to know. None of the gospel writers provided eye witness accounts of the key events. There are no independent records that verify an actual physical resurrection took place. Only Christians report a resurrection experience. Paul compared his experience with the resurrected Christ along with the other alleged sightings but Paul's experience of Christ was hearing His voice on the road to Damascus.

Do you not think your change of beliefs show you never bore fruit?
Christ says " If you obey my teachings, the Father and I, will come to you and reveal ourselves to you."
Did you never experience this?

The eternal life of the soul of course.

As the life of the soul is eternal whether in the lake of fire or with God then surely you see the negative in that thought regarding
what Christ did.

Apparently none of this made the news and it would of if it had really happened. It appears much more likely to be metaphorical in keeping with the type of mystical experiences that are described at Pentecost and prophesised by the prophet Joel.

You cannot make a reference without a reference, So if you having read the above which I can make and have in a lot of the reply made references to. References which show you
have a wrong slant on your beliefs, Then how come you never posted your references to the Prophet you mention?

We believe in the same God, Jesus, and bible which is why I believe Jesus's resurrection was a spiritual, not physical reality.

But the bible does not agree with your resurrection theory in full does it?