Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[omega2xx]

No it isn't dishonest!

If you make a dogmatic statement and can't back it up or admit you can't, that is dishonest.

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

No we are debating if God exist. There is not verifiable evidence He does. There is no verifiable evidence He does not exist. No matter what side of the fence you are on, what is believed is believed by faith alone. The only clue we have is the creation. Since matter, energy and life can't produce itself out of nothing, God is the most logical answer.

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

That is ridiculous.

I haven't ask you to prove anything because I know you can't.

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

As I have said, "I can'." I accept my view the exact same way you accept your view----faith alone.

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

You are not qualified to say Christianity is a myth. What you have said so far only points to your preconceived opinions and the fact you don' understand figurative language. When you can back up your view with some verifiable facts, get back to me, but I am not going to hold my breath until you do.

 

[omega2xx]

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.

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

Not true. I will give you several verse that show it was literal. I have already mentioned the 2 on the road to Emmaus---Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them(Lk 24:15). Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him(24:31). The Lord has appeared to Simon and has appeared to Simon(24:34). While they were telling these things, He stood in their midst (24:36). Touch me, a spirit doe snot have flesh and bones s you see I have(24:39).

Jn 20:20-22 - Jesus appears to the 10, shows them His hands and feet and breathes on them giving he the Holy Spirit. Jn 20:26-29 - Jesus appears to Thomas and says "because you have SEEN me , have you believed?"

The assention of Jesus(Acts 1:9-11) indicates a literal resurrection---those there were LOOKING at Him being lifted up.

Mt 28:9 - Jesus met them and greeted them and the came and took hold of His feet.

Mt 28:17 - When they saw Him...

I Cor 15:5-7 -He appeared to Simon, to 500 and to James.

Can you really put them all in only a spiritual resurrection?

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

Irrelevant. Others were eye witnesses to a liteal resurrection.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_to_Emmaus_appearance#cite_note-McBride210-6
Also irrelevant, unless you can address all of he other physical appearances.

Road to Emmaus appearance - Wikipedia

That link says there was a literal resurrection.

Acts 2 is rich with symbolism and references to the OT.

Be specific. What in 'acts 2 is symbolic?

It is not a literal account of events. Once again the author of Acts, was not an eyewitness.

You have no evidence to support that idea.

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

Okay. I am not going to quibble over words.

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

The verses I just quoted show Baha'i to be wrong. This shows you put more reliance on Baha'i writings than you do the Bible.

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?



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



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.

Any more discussing the resurrection with you will be a waste of time. IMO, taking the OPINIONS of Baha'i over God's inspired word is as big a mistake as anyone seeking spiritual truth can make.

A literal spiritual truth is somewhat of an oxymoron, don't you think?

If I thought so I would not have said it. You are saying a spiritual truth can't be literal and that is not true. All born again Christians have literally been born again.

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.

That Jesus resurrection is a myth is based on the writings a non-Christian religion.

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

Are you serious. Thomas and the apostles were eyewitnesses o His appearance to Thomas. If you refuse to accept the inspired word of God, there is no hope for you do know the truth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not true. I will give you several verse that show it was literal. I have already mentioned the 2 on the road to Emmaus---Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them(Lk 24:15). Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him(24:31). The Lord has appeared to Simon and has appeared to Simon(24:34). While they were telling these things, He stood in their midst (24:36). Touch me, a spirit doe snot have flesh and bones s you see I have(24:39).

Jn 20:20-22 - Jesus appears to the 10, shows them His hands and feet and breathes on them giving he the Holy Spirit. Jn 20:26-29 - Jesus appears to Thomas and says "because you have SEEN me , have you believed?"

The assention of Jesus(Acts 1:9-11) indicates a literal resurrection---those there were LOOKING at Him being lifted up.

Mt 28:9 - Jesus met them and greeted them and the came and took hold of His feet.

Mt 28:17 - When they saw Him...

I Cor 15:5-7 -He appeared to Simon, to 500 and to James.

Can you really put them all in only a spiritual resurrection?

Lets look at this a little more closely then.

The assention of Jesus(Acts 1:9-11) indicates a literal resurrection---those there were LOOKING at Him being lifted up.

These verses are the biggest give away that we have an allegorical myth rather than the telling of literal history.

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Acts 1:9-11

These verses can only be considered literally if we have a medieval type world view with heaven being literally beyond the clouds. In these modern times we know that there is only empty space beyond the clouds. We have travelled into outer space. It makes no sense and many bible scholars agree.

These verses make most sense as allegorical myth with Jesus being taken up into heaven, from where he came.
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

Obviously Jesus didn't transport down from beyond the clouds in the sky, but you will believe what you will believe.

I Cor 15:5-7 -He appeared to Simon, to 500 and to James.

Paul likens Jesus appearing to him with the other alleged resurrection experiences. The only problem is that Paul didn't see the resurrected Christ. He was blinded and heard his voice on the road to Damascus! It was well after the 40 days of so called resurrection experiences after the crucifixion of Christ.

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1 Corinthians 5-8

Not true. I will give you several verse that show it was literal. I have already mentioned the 2 on the road to Emmaus---Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them(Lk 24:15). Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him(24:31). The Lord has appeared to Simon and has appeared to Simon(24:34). While they were telling these things, He stood in their midst (24:36). Touch me, a spirit doe snot have flesh and bones s you see I have(24:39).

The author of Luke wasn't an eye witness and with the author of Matthew. Matthew uses 90% of the material from the gospel of Mark, who of course wasn't an eye witness either. Interestingly the final section of Mark that describes the resurrection doesn't feature in the earliest manuscripts (Mark 16:9-26)

These accounts do not sound like literal events, rather the portrayal of mystical experiences that formed the early part of Christian life.

Mt 28:9 - Jesus met them and greeted them and the came and took hold of His feet.

Mt 28:17 - When they saw Him...

So if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not eye witnesses where did they source their material?

Oral traditions are the most likely answer.

Jn 20:20-22 - Jesus appears to the 10, shows them His hands and feet and breathes on them giving he the Holy Spirit. Jn 20:26-29 - Jesus appears to Thomas and says "because you have SEEN me , have you believed?"

But then later in this chapter John writes:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31

Can you really put them all in only a spiritual resurrection?

That's what I've done.

Any more discussing the resurrection with you will be a waste of time. IMO, taking the OPINIONS of Baha'i over God's inspired word is as big a mistake as anyone seeking spiritual truth can make.

If you want to stop debating this with me, that's fine. However all I have done as the basis of my arguments on biblical scripture.

Even from a scriptural perspective, a physical rather than spiritual resurrection has major problems as I have demonstrated. Many bible scholars agree.

Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is nothing to say that Saul wasn't in the group that the Matthew:23 sermon was directed at.

I'm not too sure what part of Matthew 23 you are referring to.

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.

I have no problem with Paul as with any of the other apostles. I do think we need to acknowledge that Paul never saw the resurrected Jesus. He did have an experience on the road to Damascus. He did have a mystical experience.

2 Corinthians 12:1-6

He framed that experience by talking about a resurrected God to his Greco-Roman audience.

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.

Once again its all part of the same NT. I think the most important point here is how the New Testament replaces the Old.
Hebrews 8:13

 

[omega2xx]

Lets look at this a little more closely then.



These verses are the biggest give away that we have an allegorical myth rather than the telling of literal history.

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Acts 1:9-11

These verses can only be considered literally if we have a medieval type world view with heaven being literally beyond the clouds. In these modern times we know that there is only empty space beyond the clouds. We have travelled into outer space. It makes no sense and many bible scholars agree.

These verses make most sense as allegorical myth with Jesus being taken up into heaven, from where he came.
John 3:13, John 6:38, John 6:41-2

Obviously Jesus didn't transport down from beyond the clouds in the sky, but you will believe what you will believe.



Paul likens Jesus appearing to him with the other alleged resurrection experiences. The only problem is that Paul didn't see the resurrected Christ. He was blinded and heard his voice on the road to Damascus! It was well after the 40 days of so called resurrection experiences after the crucifixion of Christ.

And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1 Corinthians 5-8



The author of Luke wasn't an eye witness and with the author of Matthew. Matthew uses 90% of the material from the gospel of Mark, who of course wasn't an eye witness either. Interestingly the final section of Mark that describes the resurrection doesn't feature in the earliest manuscripts (Mark 16:9-26)

These accounts do not sound like literal events, rather the portrayal of mystical experiences that formed the early part of Christian life.



So if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not eye witnesses where did they source their material?

Oral traditions are the most likely answer.



But then later in this chapter John writes:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31



That's what I've done.



If you want to stop debating this with me, that's fine. However all I have done as the basis of my arguments on biblical scripture.

Even from a scriptural perspective, a physical rather than spiritual resurrection has major problems as I have demonstrated. Many bible scholars agree.

Historicity and origin of the Resurrection of Jesus - Wikipedia

I have had my say. You have had yours. Nothing will change. Time to move on

What you have said is not based on Scripture, it is based on your misunderstanding of Scripture based on a statement from writings not inspired by God.

 

[1robin]

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?

Hello Adrian.

The best way to understand Christ is by reading the most authoritative work on him and the text which contains his contemporary self revelation. It is the same text by which we come to know about the concept of Christ to begin with and fortunately it is the most scrutinized text in human history. However Christianity is unlike any other religion I have ever heard of. It does not merely demand we grant intellectual consent to a historical or spiritual proposition. Christianity offers a response from God to the faith of every believer in Christ.

Lets pretend that all religions throughout history are different phone numbers. They all claim their number is correct, but only Christianity's number has a being that picks up on the other end the moment its number is first dialed and regardless of who is making the call.

 

[1robin]

How about complete myth?

This is not an argument, it is yelling at traffic.

 

[1robin]

Since His body was reported as unrecognizable, and only appeared to those of faith, I would think spiritual. His risen body was no longer a body as we know bodies, bound by the dimensions of space and time. Paul's description of risen bodies, spiritual, not natural or physical, he even implies that these bodies are no longer flesh and blood. For Paul it is a mystery. When all is said and done I am satisfied that the D/R and giving of the Spirit was an eschatological event for which there is no language beyond analogy to describe the interaction of the eschatological and the historical.

Just how wrong can a position be?

The physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus is foundational to Christian doctrine and our hope of heaven. Because Jesus rose from the dead with a physical body, every Christian has the guarantee of his own bodily resurrection (John 5:21, 28; Romans 8:23). Now Jesus is in heaven, where He is pictured as sitting in a place of authority, at the right hand of God (1 Peter 3:22). But is Jesus’ body in heaven the same as His body on earth?

The Bible is clear that Jesus’ body was resurrected. The tomb was empty. He was recognizable to those who knew Him. Jesus showed Himself to all His disciples after His resurrection, and more than five hundred people were eyewitnesses to His earthly, post-resurrection presence (1 Corinthians 15:4–6). In Luke 24:16, on the road to Emmaus, two of Jesus’ disciples “were kept from recognizing [Jesus].” However, later, “their eyes were opened and they recognized Him” (verse 31). It’s not that Jesus was unrecognizable; it’s that, for a time, the disciples were supernaturally restrained from recognizing Him.

Later in the same chapter of Luke, Christ makes it plain to His disciples that He does have a physical body; He is not a disembodied spirit: “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have” (Luke 24:39). After spending forty days with His disciples, Jesus ascended bodily into heaven (Acts 1:9). Jesus is still human, and He has a human body in heaven right now. His body is different, however; earthly human flesh is perishable, but heavenly bodies are imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:50). Jesus has a physical body, with a difference. His resurrected body is designed with eternity in view.
Does Jesus have a physical body in heaven?

 

[pearl]

The Bible is clear that Jesus’ body was resurrected.

Don't confuse resurrection with resuscitation. The life of him who has risen from the dead is not once again the bio-logical form of our mortal life within history, it is new, different, beyond the mortal realm of the biological and history, surpassed by a greater power, the Resurrection narratives allow for seeing that the life of the Risen One lies, not within the historical biological but beyond and above it. Take the Emmaus story; Jesus is unrecognizable to the accustomed eye. He is discovered only in the realm of faith. The two recognize Him only by His interpretation of Scripture and the breaking of bread, a reference to the two basic elements in the early Christian worship, the liturgy of the word and the breaking of the bread.

 

[Ingledsva]

If you make a dogmatic statement and can't back it up or admit you can't, that is dishonest.

Pure wishful thinking on your part.

You said --

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.

People do not have to prove-false, ghosts, goblins, fairies, and the other mythological ideas coming from people's brains. It is up to the person claiming the unseen myth, to prove it is true.

No we are debating if God exist. There is not verifiable evidence He does. There is no verifiable evidence He does not exist. No matter what side of the fence you are on, what is believed is believed by faith alone. The only clue we have is the creation. Since matter, energy and life can't produce itself out of nothing, God is the most logical answer.

And that is what makes your argument so funny.

YOU can not prove your God and myth, but you expect us to accept it "or else," - and you want us to prove false what YOU can't even prove to be true.

It is indeed FAITH - as I said. And we don't care what you believe in. The problem is when you want us to follow your myth which has no proof. Or when Christians try to force their religious law into the law of the land.

And what is even funnier in this situation - is that YOU expect us to believe YOUR not provable religious myth, but then YOU don't believe other religion's myth when they proclaim it TRUE, to YOU. LOL!

I haven't ask you to prove anything because I know you can't.

1. I don't have to disprove what you can't prove.

2. You have said such to others whom don't agree with YOU.

As I have said, "I can'." I accept my view the exact same way you accept your view----faith alone.

That is straight out FALSE! You go on Faith. I prefer science. Prove your mythic assertions.

You are not qualified to say Christianity is a myth. What you have said so far only points to your preconceived opinions and the fact you don' understand figurative language. When you can back up your view with some verifiable facts, get back to me, but I am not going to hold my breath until you do.

Until any religion can prove their assertions, - they are just Faith, - thus mythos.

Mythos = the underlying system of beliefs, especially those dealing with supernatural forces, characteristic of a particular cultural group.

Myth = a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

There is nothing to say that Saul wasn't in the group that the Matthew:23 sermon was directed at.

Other than the fact that he wasn't born until AFTER Jesus' death.

We also have -

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. = born AFTER Jesus' death.

He was born In 2 AD, and supposedly met the dead Jesus around 33 AD, according to Christian sites.

Apostle Paul's Birth to First Journey Timeline

*

 

[1robin]

Don't confuse resurrection with resuscitation. The life of him who has risen from the dead is not once again the bio-logical form of our mortal life within history, it is new, different, beyond the mortal realm of the biological and history, surpassed by a greater power, the Resurrection narratives allow for seeing that the life of the Risen One lies, not within the historical biological but beyond and above it. Take the Emmaus story; Jesus is unrecognizable to the accustomed eye. He is discovered only in the realm of faith. The two recognize Him only by His interpretation of Scripture and the breaking of bread, a reference to the two basic elements in the early Christian worship, the liturgy of the word and the breaking of the bread.

I specifically did not confuse the two. Christ was called the first fruit because he was the first resurrection in human history. That is because the people that came back to life after death before Christ, were merely resuscitated, but eventually died again. Christ was the first person to be given a perfect resurrection body, it will never decay or die. That is what is promised to Christians after death. When we are raised again we will be given new bodies which are perfect in every way, to dwell in eternal harmony with God. In the parts of the bible concerning Christ's resurrected nature as well as Christians ultimate resurrection it specifically goes out of it's way to make clear that resurrected bodies will be physical bodies.

The story of the road to Emmaus has to do with the spiritual blindness of 2 apostles, not the nature of Christ's resurrected form.

You must have simply misunderstood what I said, or are you trying to say that Jesus lacked a spiritual body? I do not know what your point was.

 

[pearl]

The story of the road to Emmaus has to do with the spiritual blindness of 2 apostles, not the nature of Christ's resurrected form.

They did not recognize Jesus. In none of the 'appearances' did He have the same physical body. There is the confession of faith, that the same Jesus crucified, lives, resurrected, and then there is the narrative.

 

[1robin]

They did not recognize Jesus. In none of the 'appearances' did He have the same physical body. There is the confession of faith, that the same Jesus crucified, lives, resurrected, and then there is the narrative.

I am not sure your talking about. I have specifically said twice now that Christ was given a new body when he was resurrected. You seem to think agreeing with me is an argument or something, and I don't think English is your primary language.

 

[pearl]

I am not sure your talking about. I have specifically said twice now that Christ was given a new body when he was resurrected. You seem to think agreeing with me is an argument or something, and I don't think English is your primary language.

Neither of the Evangelists make any attempt to describe the Resurrection, it is the interpretation of the empty tomb. The first witness, Mary the Magdalene, probably the closest to Him did not recognize Him. People who sat at table with Him days earlier did not recognize Him, Only where He granted vision was He seen. That's why the impossibility of the Gospels to describe the encounter with the risen Christ. We confess that God raised Jesus from death to life, the narrative is the attempt to describe the risen Jesus.




















































































agdalene

 

[Dawnofhope]

Lets pretend that all religions throughout history are different phone numbers. They all claim their number is correct, but only Christianity's number has a being that picks up on the other end the moment its number is first dialed and regardless of who is making the call.

The problem is I dialled a different number and received an answer!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Or maybe it's just one phone with multiple lines like at work and you simply get redirected to that one. Or maybe it's just an automated phone bot who is programmed to spit out stock phrases at you until you hang up.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I have specifically said twice now that Christ was given a new body when he was resurrected.

And he still had nail holes? I'd sue the body manufacturer for just giving me the same ol', same ol'.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am not sure your talking about. I have specifically said twice now that Christ was given a new body when he was resurrected. You seem to think agreeing with me is an argument or something, and I don't think English is your primary language.

What @pcarl makes perfect sense. I think it is very difficult for Christians to challenge mainstream conservative beliefs about the resurrection. I know of academics have lost their posts or even tried for heresy just for saying what they really think.

Neither of the Evangelists make any attempt to describe the Resurrection, it is the interpretation of the empty tomb. The first witness, Mary the Magdalene, probably the closest to Him did not recognize Him. People who sat at table with Him days earlier did not recognize Him, Only where He granted vision was He seen. That's why the impossibility of the Gospels to describe the encounter with the risen Christ. We confess that God raised Jesus from death to life, the narrative is the attempt to describe the risen Jesus.

So why are the Romans placing a criminal into a tomb rather than dumping him in a hole somewhere with all the other bodies.

And he still had nail holes? I'd sue the body manufacturer for just giving me the same ol', same ol'.

He hadn't considered the phrase (Divine) physician heal thyself?

 

[pearl]

I think it is very difficult for Christians to challenge mainstream conservative beliefs about the resurrection. I know of academics have lost their posts or even tried for heresy just for saying what they really think.

Actually, I do not consider what I posted a challenge since I only refer to sources approved by the Church. it presents a problem to those who insist the Resurrection narrative must be accepted as literal.