Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[Dawnofhope]

@RESOLUTION

There were problems with your response. I have put your responses in red and mine in black.

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?

I see no evidence for this theory in scripture other than a misunderstanding. You are welcome to try to justify it.


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.

Anger as we know it is a very human response which is what Jesus expressed whether it be righteous or otherwise.

God is an omnipotent and beyond our comprehension. It is an error to think of God in human terms, Yet He needs to communicate with us through His human prophets using language and concepts that are comprehensible to us.


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?

We can be baptised into the Holy Spirit and saving Grace of God. That has nothing to do with enabling Jesus or anyone else to ascend into the stratosphere.

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.

Not our flesh but our inner, spiritual selves change. We have spiritual life through Jesus but that enables us to eternal life, not to be confused with being spiritually resurrected.

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

You are assuming I don't know scripture because I have a different understanding to you.

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.

You are assuming I don't know scripture because I have a different understanding to you.


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.

I do not see you have provided any proofs through scripture or reasonable arguments to support a physical resurrection.

The true meaning of the resurrection?

Jesus came from heaven:
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

The risen body of Christ is the Church:
Roman 12:5 'one body in Christ'
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 'baptised into one body'
1 Corinthians 12:25 'no schism in the body'
1 Corinthians 12:27 'you are the body of Christ'
Colossians 1:18 'He is the head of the body'
Ephesians 2:5-6 'members of His body, and His flesh'

The spiritual resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:42-4 'it is raised in a spiritual body'
1 Corinthians 15:50 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom'

Were the apostles of Christ misguided in this matter, and misled others?
No
Do the scriptures lie?
No. The apostles were guided by God's unerring spirit.

Lets consider Christ's manner of speech throughout His ministry. He used words and phrases with literal meanings to convey spiritual messages and truths. How do we understand verses such as 'unless one is born again he can not see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3) or 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink HIs blood, you have no life in you'? (John 6:53). When the apostles spoke of Christ as being risen they spoke as Christ spoke. The use of symbols is necessary to convey truths that can not be readily understood with literal speech. The symbolic verses are also God's way of testing the hearts of His true followers.


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?
Yes

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?
Yes


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.

I'm uncertain of your point here.


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?

Joel 2:28 as recorded in Acts 2:17. Pauls mystical experience of Christ is described best in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4.

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?
Of course it does.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Which is why I believe Jesus rose from the dead and so will all who believe in him.

I have posted my response above.

 

[Cephus]

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?

I don't reject their evidence because they have no evidence to reject. What they present is not evidence and would not be seen as evidence for any other claim. If someone said "I felt Bigfoot in my heart" or "I have philosophical arguments for the existence of extraterrestrials", they'd get laughed at. Doing the same thing for gods isn't any difference. And I'm not promoting atheism, I'm pointing out how absolutely stupid the claims made by religion are. I have absolutely no responsibility for proving these idiotic claims wrong, the burden of proof lies entirely with the person making the positive claim, meaning the theist. Too bad they fail miserably at every turn.

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.

I don't care what you think, I care what you can prove. I don't care what makes you feel good, I care about what you can demonstrate exists in the real world. And, of course, what I presented was the dictionary definition of the word. If you are using another definition, you are using the word wrong.

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.

Making sense to you means nothing to anyone but you. I couldn't care less how you feel about your beliefs, I care if your beliefs are objectively and factually correct. Unfortunately, that's something that virtually no theists care about. I certainly won't argue that religion has had a profound effect on humanity, but as my tagline says, there simply isn't anything demonstrably true that you can get from religion that you can't get just as effectively, or moreso, from pure secularism. We don't need religion. Certainly lots of people *WANT* religion, but a growing number of people are showing that it just isn't necessary.

 

[Ingledsva]

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

First - you can't keep bringing up books written later - with additions and deletions/editing, and expect them to have any legitimacy when discussing Tanakh. Jesus taught Tanakh.

Jesus didn't say to end any of these laws. He did tells us the problem was the trend to - the letter of the law, - rather then understanding the why of the law, and of course compassion.

I've already said he claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah. However, instead of completing the Messiah tasks, - he died.

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.

See above. Letter of the Law, - versus - understanding of the WHY of the Law, - and compassion.

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?

I studied archaeology, comparative religion, additional Christian religion courses, and of course read and actually studied the Bible.

I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is a human construct, and not an actual God. The God of the Bible is far to human - evil - vindictive, - murders babies for adult crimes, murder for following other religions, - allows the owning of women, - sex slavery, - slaves, - etc. These are all things the HUMAN writers wanted to be able to do. The God of the Bible is a bunch of human men.

*

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for sharing your views @Ingledsva

Jesus didn't say to end any of these laws. He did tells us the problem was the trend to - the letter of the law, - rather then understanding the why of the law, and of course compassion.

I agree that there is a lack of clarity from the words and teachings of Jesus. I don't know how you feel about the apostles and other books in the NT but they certainly supported a break from the OT to the NT.

Hebrews 8:13

I've already said he claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah. However, instead of completing the Messiah tasks, - he died.

It is clear that He partially fulfilled prophecy in the OT but not completely. I would argue the return of Christ fulfils all the prophecy.

See above. Letter of the Law, - versus - understanding of the WHY of the Law, - and compassion.

I hope we are agreed that Jesus brought a new emphasis based on love and compassion.

I studied archaeology, comparative religion, additional Christian religion courses, and of course read and actually studied the Bible.

Cool. I studied science, music and medicine. I studied briefly at a theology college when doing my medical degree.

I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is a human construct, and not an actual God. The God of the Bible is far to human - evil - vindictive, - murders babies for adult crimes, murder for following other religions, - allows the owning of women, - sex slavery, - slaves, - etc. These are all things the HUMAN writers wanted to be able to do. The God of the Bible is a bunch of human men.

I can not deny the brutality and violence I the world of the OT but they were such different times from the age we live in now. I still believe in the same God, Christ, and Bible as the Christians do. However Baha'u'llah brought a new revelation that fulfils the OT and NT so I'm good with that.

I'm sensing a deep concern about issues of treatment of women in the past and in another thread with the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Ingledsva]

Thank you for sharing your views

I agree that there is a lack of clarity from the words and teachings of Jesus. I don't know how you feel about the apostles and other books in the NT but they certainly supported a break from the OT to the NT.

Hebrews 8:13

ALL NT texts were written AFTER Jesus' death. Some LONG after his death, and misquoting Tanakh texts to suit their needs. He didn't have a chance to check them.

It is clear that He partially fulfilled prophecy in the OT but not completely. I would argue the return of Christ fulfils all the prophecy.

Actually we have no way of knowing such - as everything concerning him was written later.

And they had Tanakh to search - for Messiah info. Jesus knew Tanakh. If he actually claimed to be the awaited Messiah - then he would have tried to fulfill as many of the prophacies as possible. However - he didn't - he died.

I hope we are agreed that Jesus brought a new emphasis based on love and compassion.

According to - most - of those written LATER texts. However we also have Luke 28 in a parable by Jesus - about himself.

Luk 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

I can not deny the brutality and violence I the world of the OT but they were such different times from the age we live in now. I still believe in the same God, Christ, and Bible as the Christians do. However Baha'u'llah brought a new revelation that fulfils the OT and NT so I'm good with that.

What do the "times" have to do with an evil God?

And how would outside Baha'u'llah ideas - fulfill Tanakh Messiah ideas? Their Messiah is supposed to bring the end. Jesus did not do this.

I'm sensing a deep concern about issues of treatment of women in the past and in another thread with the Baha'i Faith.

Very obviously, patriarchal crap still reigns around the world.

*

 

[paarsurrey]

Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

Jesus never died on the cross in the first place, so there was no resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He was hastily put in the tomb of Joseph
Arimathea while he was still alive but in near-dead position.
Please
regards

 

[Muffled]

It isn't my job to prove them wrong, it is their job to prove themselves right. I couldn't care less what ridiculous nonsense you believe, I care what you can prove, which we both know is nothing.

I believe you are the one saying that they are wrong so you do have to prove that or stop saying it because it is just a fantasy in your head.

 

[Muffled]

None of the writers was an eyewitness. Only Mary Magdalene was there in each story. Was Jesus there? Two angels, one angel, no angels? Since they weren't eyewitnesses, but had to rely on someone who was there, did they get a different story or just decided on their own to omit things?

What is that verse in the Quran that they misunderstand?

I believe John was there. Luke interviewed the witnesses which would have included Mary. Then we have the other two Marys and we don't know who they talked to about it. So for some it is second hand from the witnesses and for John he is a witness.

I believe it was something to the affect that they didn't kill Him or crucify Him.

 

[Muffled]

I believe he did rise from the dead. Other wise it would be pointless, wouldn't it... Christianity, that is..

I believe it made it possible for me to believe but I don't believe that is the point but my belief is.

 

[RESOLUTION]

I believe it made it possible for me to believe but I don't believe that is the point but my belief is.

JESUS, The way, the truth and life.
That is the point.

 

[omega2xx]

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?

If the Bible says it, believe it or prove it is not true. It is dishonest to say something is not true and not show why it is not.

FYI the resurrection is both literal and allegorical, but remember Biblical allegories are always based on a literal event.

Christians were crucified with Christ---Rom 6:6; we were buried with Him(Rom 6:4); we were raised up with Him(Col 2:12 we died with him and spiritually speaking we have been resurrected and are living with Him in heaven(Col 3:3)

If you are not teaching these truth, you are not teaching the Bible.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If the Bible says it, believe it or prove it is not true. It is dishonest to say something is not true and not show why it is not.

So I am dishonest? If you read the original OP I ask a question, without providing the answer. However we have been exchanging views in a variety of threads now, so you know I do not believe in the physical resurrection. There are major problems with this belief, though appreciate that many Christians consider this one of their fundamental teachings.

The true meaning of the resurrection?

Jesus came from heaven:
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

The risen body of Christ is the Church:
Roman 12:5 'one body in Christ'
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 'baptised into one body'
1 Corinthians 12:25 'no schism in the body'
1 Corinthians 12:27 'you are the body of Christ'
Colossians 1:18 'He is the head of the body'
Ephesians 2:5-6 'members of His body, and His flesh'

The spiritual resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:42-4 'it is raised in a spiritual body'
1 Corinthians 15:50 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom'

FYI the resurrection is both literal and allegorical, but remember Biblical allegories are always based on a literal event.

How about allegorical and not literal at all?

Christians were crucified with Christ---Rom 6:6; we were buried with Him(Rom 6:4); we were raised up with Him(Col 2:12 we died with him and spiritually speaking we have been resurrected and are living with Him in heaven(Col 3:3)

Metaphorically we are crucified with Christ, literally we are not. Similarly with being buried. It is all in a spiritual sense as you say. Not physical at all.

If you are not teaching these truth, you are not teaching the Bible.

I am both a student and teacher of the bible. I'm here to learn just as much to teach.

 

[omega2xx]

So I am dishonest?

I prefer "uninformed." The Bible clearly teaches the resurrection as a fact.. If you teach it is not true, how can you say you are teaching the Bible? you are calling kGod a liar.

If you read the original OP I ask a question, without providing the answer. However we have been exchanging views in a variety of threads now, so you know I do not believe in the physical resurrection. There are major problems with this belief, though appreciate that many Christians consider this one of their fundamental teachings.

The true meaning of the resurrection?

Jesus came from heaven:
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

The risen body of Christ is the Church:
Roman 12:5 'one body in Christ'
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 'baptised into one body'
1 Corinthians 12:25 'no schism in the body'
1 Corinthians 12:27 'you are the body of Christ'
Colossians 1:18 'He is the head of the body'
Ephesians 2:5-6 'members of His body, and His flesh'[/QUOTE]

None of those verse, not one, reject the physical resurrection of Jesus.

The spiritual resurrection:
1 Corinthians 15:42-4 'it is raised in a spiritual body'
1 Corinthians 15:50 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom'

Jesus physically died. He is now in heaven sitting at the right hand of God(Mk 16:19) How did He get there" Is Mark lying" Have you forgotten Jesus's tomb was empty? What did the angel say---(Mark 16:6---you are looking forf Jesus the Nazerene, who was crucified. He has risen, He is not here. Is teh angel lying .

How about allegorical and not literal at all?

First, Biblical allegories are always based on an acutual, literal event. Second all figurative language teaches a spiritual truth. What truth, does making the resurrection an allegory teach>

Metaphorically we are crucified with Christ, literally we are not. Similarly with being buried. It is all in a spiritual sense as you say. Not physical at all.

First of all it is allegory, not metaphor. Second the allegory applies to Christians, not to Christ. Finally. all spiritual truths area also literal truth---All Christians have literally been born again.

I am both a student and teacher of the bible. I'm here to learn just as much to teach.

That's fine. I am both also. I still say, if you are teaching some of the Biblical doctrines are not true, you are not teaching the Bible.

I know your religion teaches we must be good to be accepted by God, or at least some form of that, but that is not Biblical either. WE are not accepted by God on the basis of what we do or not do. We are accepted on the basis of what we believe about Jesus.

Don't get me wrong. I respect any religion that has a moral base, but I reject any religion not based on the Bible.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I prefer "uninformed." The Bible clearly teaches the resurrection as a fact.. If you teach it is not true, how can you say you are teaching the Bible? you are calling kGod a liar.

like you I've considered the bible over many years, both from the perspective of my belief in Christ, but also Baha'u'llah. I was born into a Presbyterian family.

Of course I don't call God a liar.

The true meaning of the resurrection?

Jesus came from heaven:
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

The risen body of Christ is the Church:
Roman 12:5 'one body in Christ'
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 'baptised into one body'
1 Corinthians 12:25 'no schism in the body'
1 Corinthians 12:27 'you are the body of Christ'
Colossians 1:18 'He is the head of the body'
Ephesians 2:5-6 'members of His body, and His flesh'

None of those verse, not one, reject the physical resurrection of Jesus.

They give compelling evidence for an alternative understanding of what the resurrection is.

Jesus physically died. He is now in heaven sitting at the right hand of God(Mk 16:19) How did He get there" Is Mark lying" Have you forgotten Jesus's tomb was empty? What did the angel say---(Mark 16:6---you are looking forf Jesus the Nazerene, who was crucified. He has risen, He is not here. Is teh angel lying .

Were the apostles of Christ misguided in this matter, and misled others?
No

Do the scriptures lie?
No. The apostles were guided by God's unerring spirit.

Lets consider Christ's manner of speech throughout His ministry. He used words and phrases with literal meanings to convey spiritual messages and truths. How do we understand verses such as 'unless one is born again he can not see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3) or 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink HIs blood, you have no life in you'? (John 6:53). When the apostles spoke of Christ as being risen they spoke as Christ spoke. The use of symbols is necessary to convey truths that can not be readily understood with literal speech. The symbolic verses are also God's way of testing the hearts of His true followers.

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.

First, Biblical allegories are always based on an acutual, literal event. Second all figurative language teaches a spiritual truth. What truth, does making the resurrection an allegory teach

Where is the biblical verse that tells us all allegory is based on a literal event?

The resurrection story helps us understand the eternal life of the soul. It was clearly an area the Jews were confused about.

First of all it is allegory, not metaphor. Second the allegory applies to Christians, not to Christ. Finally. all spiritual truths area also literal truth---All Christians have literally been born again.

Being born again is not literal. The language symbolises a spiritual reality, that of being born in the spirit of Christ and living a new life in accordance with His teachings.

That's fine. I am both also. I still say, if you are teaching some of the Biblical doctrines are not true, you are not teaching the Bible.

I can say exactly the same to you. None of us can claim authority over the other. We both acknowledge the authority of the bible. It would be foolish to ignore the myriad of different understandings that have come about over the last two thousand years, and how one side as claimed the other to be misled or heretics.

I know your religion teaches we must be good to be accepted by God, or at least some form of that, but that is not Biblical either. WE are not accepted by God on the basis of what we do or not do. We are accepted on the basis of what we believe about Jesus.

I think we have said enough to each other about faith and deeds. For a Baha'i it is both. For you it is faith in Christ alone. We will need to agree to disagree.

Don't get me wrong. I respect any religion that has a moral base, but I reject any religion not based on the Bible.

I reject any theology that exalts itself to the detriment of other Manifestations of God. We will have to agree to disagree.

I suspect once we have shared thoughts at length about our views on the resurrection, we will have to agree to disagree on that one too.

 

[MHz]

It might be useful to consider that Paul never saw the resurrected Christ. Yet he likened his resurrection experiences to those of others.

On this particular issue I have set up a thread. I'm happy to discuss further.

Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

There is nothing to say that Saul wasn't in the group that the Matthew:23 sermon was directed at. There are 4 accounts in the Gospels, how could Saul testify to something he was not a witness to. Having a 5th witness would convince more than 4 witnesses will. A lot of the condemnation on Paul is that he does not cover earlier events,if God has a message to get out rehashing events already covered in earlier texts. What Peter and the other Apostles were teaching in their stay in Jerusalem is the same one Paul was teaching on the road. All it shows is that God used an alternative person to get some new scriptures in the hands of the Gentiles and Jews as Paul always stopped at the Synagogues first. Peter's vision about Gentile food being made clean was just as ignored back then as it is today.

 

[omega2xx]

like you I've considered the bible over many years, both from the perspective of my belief in Christ, but also Baha'u'llah. I was born into a Presbyterian family.

I was converted at age 45. Although I went to church off and on, mostly off, I never understood it until l was converted. I was converted after I had decided never to go to church again.

Of course I don't call God a liar.

I didn't mean that literally. Think about this; if God says there is a literal resurrection, and He does,(Acts 2:32 and you say it is not literal. That comes close. Let me say you are uninformed. You are not calling Him a liar because you interpret the resurrection figuratively. Surely you don't believe Jesus death was figurative. Surely you don't think God is not able to raise the dead.

Who was the person the 2 on the road to Emmas were talking to?

They give compelling evidence for an alternative understanding of what the resurrection is.

Where.

Were the apostles of Christ misguided in this matter, and misled others?
No

The apostles were eyewitness to the resurrection.

Do the scriptures lie?
No. The apostles were guided by God's unerring spirit.

And Jesus spoke to them after His crucifixion.

Lets consider Christ's manner of speech throughout His ministry. He used words and phrases with literal meanings to convey spiritual messages and truths.[/QUOTE]

Actually it was just the opposite. He used figurative language to explain literal, spiritual truths. Most of His teachings were in parables..

Jn 16:25 - These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; a time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father

How do we understand verses such as 'unless one is born again he can not see the kingdom of God' (John 3:3) or 'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink HIs blood, you have no life in you'? (John 6:53). When the apostles spoke of Christ as being risen they spoke as Christ spoke. The use of symbols is necessary to convey truths that can not be readily understood with literal speech. The symbolic verses are also God's way of testing the hearts of His true followers.

Jn 3:3 and context is a good example of figurative language teaching a literal spiritual truth. It basically teaches us that we play the same part in our spiritual birth as we did in our natural birth. Water symbolizes God word(Eph 5:26) and the blood symbolizes Jesus death paying form our sins.

In Jn 6:53, The bread(His flesh) and the blood speak of the elements of the Lord's supper. If we do not take of the Lord's supper believing Jesus' death purchased our salvation, we will not live forever.

None of the gospel writers provided eye witness accounts of the key events.[

Of course they did. Name a key event they did not provide an eyewitness account of.

There are no independent records that verify an actual physical resurrection took place.<<

We don't need independent records. We have the Gospels and most of the epistles that verify it for all who believe. Does everything Bahai teach have independent records and eyewitness?

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.

Are they all lying?

Where is the biblical verse that tells us all allegory is based on a literal event?

It doesn't. It comes from studying the whole Bible. Only one thing in the Bible is called an allegory. The Story of Sarah and Hagar(Gal 4:24-32, and we know they were literal Characters.
If you understand allegory, you will see the statement is true.

The resurrection story helps us understand the eternal life of the soul. It was clearly an area the Jews were confused about.

The resurrection account assures us we will also be resurrected---If Christ was not raised, our faith in vain.

Being born again is not literal. The language symbolizes a spiritual reality, that of being born in the spirit of Christ and living a new life in accordance with His teachings.

I have literally been born again. It is not about being in the Spirit. It is about being spiritually born of God.

I can say exactly the same to you. None of us can claim authority over the other. We both acknowledge the authority of the bible. It would be foolish to ignore the myriad of different understandings that have come about over the last two thousand years, and how one side as claimed the other to be misled or heretics.

I am claiming that any religious writings that contradict the Bible or the Bible contradicts make the other religion a false one.

I think we have said enough to each other about faith and deeds. For a Baha'i it is both. For you it is faith in Christ alone. We will need to agree to disagree.

Agreed

reject any theology that exalts itself to the detriment of other Manifestations of God. We will have to agree to disagree.

A true religion exalts itself over all other religions.

I suspect once we have shared thoughts at length about our views on the resurrection, we will have to agree to disagree on that one too.

Agreed.

 

[Ingledsva]

If the Bible says it, believe it or prove it is not true. It is dishonest to say something is not true and not show why it is not. ...

No it isn't dishonest!

You are not debating if something is tea or coffee, - which can be scientifically proven.

You are telling us we must prove your talking serpents, and dragons, and golems, etc, - your religious MYTH, - isn't true.

That is ridiculous.

You are the ones making the extraordinary claims which goes against science. Therefore YOU must prove it.

And you can not do that, - you are in fact taking your religious myth on FAITH, - not fact, and definitely not proof.

*

 

[Dawnofhope]

I was converted at age 45. Although I went to church off and on, mostly off, I never understood it until l was converted. I was converted after I had decided never to go to church again.

I had a period of 9 months in my mid 20s when I decided there was probably no God. It was the worst 9 months of my life. It is only when I turned my thoughts back to God that I became at peace and happy again. Otherwise, belief in God has been an important part of my life. I'm in my early 50s now.

I didn't mean that literally. Think about this; if God says there is a literal resurrection, and He does,(Acts 2:32 and you say it is not literal. That comes close. Let me say you are uninformed. You are not calling Him a liar because you interpret the resurrection figuratively. Surely you don't believe Jesus death was figurative. Surely you don't think God is not able to raise the dead.

Who was the person the 2 on the road to Emmas were talking to?

God doesn't say there is a literal resurrection. You are making an assumption based on your understanding of the bible.

The author of Luke wasn't an eyewitness to this 'appearance'. I'm not alone in considering this as an allegorical account.

Though it may be said that its main subject is proving the Resurrection by the appearance of Jesus, this narrative seems not saying anything about proving the event. R. W. L. Moberly suggests that "the story is best understood as an exposition of the hermeneutical issue of discernment, focussing specifically on the question, 'How does one discern the risen Christ?'"[5] Alfred McBride says that the Emmaus narrative concerns about "the evolution of the awareness of the two disciples, from despair over Christ's death to faith in his resurrection". Used to perceive Christian spiritual growth, this narrative considered as a model for a Christians' own journey to a deeper faith and as an instrument to help others do the same journey.[

Road to Emmaus appearance - Wikipedia

Acts 2 is rich with symbolism and references to the OT. It is not a literal account of events. Once again the author of Acts, was not an eyewitness.

It would be more accurate to say I have a different opinion. 'Uninformed' sounds like I haven't considered the evidence. I have.

Where.

It is important to realise Baha'is see great importance in the resurrection of Christ, but as a spiritual, not literal event.

Jesus came from heaven:
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

The risen body of Christ is the Church:
Roman 12:5 'one body in Christ'
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 'baptised into one body'
1 Corinthians 12:25 'no schism in the body'
1 Corinthians 12:27 'you are the body of Christ'
Colossians 1:18 'He is the head of the body'
Ephesians 2:5-6 'members of His body, and His flesh

Remember?

The apostles were eyewitness to the resurrection.

Who were the ones who were eyewitnesses and authored a book in the NT recording the experience as history?

And Jesus spoke to them after His crucifixion.

Many people say Jesus has talked to them. The are speaking figuratively as in the NT, rather than as a literal event.

The gospels are written so we may believe, and so is filled with poetic touches and embellishments.

Jn 16:25 - These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; a time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father

Refers to His return, not resurrection.

Jn 3:3 and context is a good example of figurative language teaching a literal spiritual truth. It basically teaches us that we play the same part in our spiritual birth as we did in our natural birth. Water symbolizes God word(Eph 5:26) and the blood symbolizes Jesus death paying form our sins.

In Jn 6:53, The bread(His flesh) and the blood speak of the elements of the Lord's supper. If we do not take of the Lord's supper believing Jesus' death purchased our salvation, we will not live forever.

A literal spiritual truth is somewhat of an oxymoron, don't you think? It is using a literal truth (physical birth) to convey a spiritual message. Myths such as the resurrection myth can do the same. It doesn't have to be literally true.

Of course they did. Name a key event they did not provide an eyewitness account of.

How about the empty tomb and the appearance to Thomas. None that were present, has authored an account of the event in the NT.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We don't need independent records. We have the Gospels and most of the epistles that verify it for all who believe. Does everything Bahai teach have independent records and eyewitness?

If we are trying to prove an event that contradicts reason and science, we do. Although there are many miracles in the history of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'is avoid promoting such miracles as proof of their religion. In fact the Ulama asked Baha'u'llah for a miracle to prove His claims. Baha'ullah explained that it was for God to test His servants, not the other way around. However He agreed to perform any miracle of their choice under the condition that they agree in writing to fully accept His claims and follow Him. They backed down of course.

Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

It doesn't. It comes from studying the whole Bible. Only one thing in the Bible is called an allegory. The Story of Sarah and Hagar(Gal 4:24-32, and we know they were literal Characters.
If you understand allegory, you will see the statement is true.
.

The world being created in six days and the story of Noah's ark are both myths and allegories. Neither is literally true. Similarly with the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. The resurrection myth joins the list.

.
I have literally been born again. It is not about being in the Spirit. It is about being spiritually born of God.

If you had been literally born again it would have been very awkward for your mother.

I am claiming that any religious writings that contradict the Bible or the Bible contradicts make the other religion a false one..

Judaism makes similar claims. Should we accept a religion that makes such a claim because they make it?

A true religion exalts itself over all other religions.

Islam exalts itself over Christianity. Does that make it true?