Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

Prophecy fulfillment proves nothing at all.
Religious prophecies are always so vague as to spread the target as wide as possible, that they fit almost any eventuality.
People trawl the bible to see what seems to fit. Then say I told you so.

 

[Kenny]

Heck if I know, I didn't actually write what you quoted me as writing.

hahahaha... I don't even know how your name came up as I hit reply on a different person's post.

 

[Kenny]

Anyone can speak of scripture. Its not a magical book. People almost depend on it as if it were they life. Jesus taught otherwise.

How so?

 

[Kenny]

Prophecy fulfillment proves nothing at all.
Religious prophecies are always so vague as to spread the target as wide as possible, that they fit almost any eventuality.
People trawl the bible to see what seems to fit. Then say I told you so.

they aren't vague.

 

[Cephus]

hahahaha... I don't even know how your name came up as I hit reply on a different person's post.

Don't worry about it, it happens.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How so?

He taught t depend on him tonget to the faher. Even the scriptures of "the apostles and prophets" speak for christ and for his father. To put scripture as a means to get to christ is using it as idol.

Scripture isnt a magic book. You dont need to be filled with the spirit to understand it. Instead, if you want to live beyond spiritual understanding (whuch anyone can possess from any resource), thats when you need the holy spirit in regards to christianity.

But scripture isnt magic. There are a lot of verses pointing to the father only. Christ said only his father is good, why would the bible be an idol to the father when christ didnt go to hebrew scriptures to talk to his father. He went to him directly.

 

[soma]

We need think and direct our actions, intellect, moral and spiritual growth to know what is anticipated from our own particular talents. This expansion or awareness of our unit consciousness is the resurrection of the Christ consciousness within where the dead rise again to enjoy eternal life in an expanded consciousness in a totally new creation. To live in the middle of our stream of consciousness according to the laws for realization is spiritually balanced and healthy. It is an affirmation of our total human nature and a great way to respect the wonderful nature of our soul because we see the Divinity within everyone and everything. Life is not just getting a degree, a good job, settling down or raising a family; it is self-actualization and the finding out who we really are in the resurrection of our every potential.

 

[Kenny]

He taught t depend on him tonget to the faher. Even the scriptures of "the apostles and prophets" speak for christ and for his father. To put scripture as a means to get to christ is using it as idol.

Scripture isnt a magic book. You dont need to be filled with the spirit to understand it. Instead, if you want to live beyond spiritual understanding (whuch anyone can possess from any resource), thats when you need the holy spirit in regards to christianity.

But scripture isnt magic. There are a lot of verses pointing to the father only. Christ said only his father is good, why would the bible be an idol to the father when christ didnt go to hebrew scriptures to talk to his father. He went to him directly.

Yes, I would agree that we should depend on the Father but I don't find where it excludes scripture in as much as much of it came from the Father Himself. Additionally, I don't find where Jesus said don't receive what was written especially since he quoted it often.

Prov. 4;
20 My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.
21 Let them not departfrom 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.

Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is writtentherein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Ps. 119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

And so many more.

It isn't a "magic book" but His words are filled with life and hope. Think of it this way, who I am can be expressed in the totality of what I say and write. You can't separate the two.

The difference is only when you major on memorizing someones words but void of heart relationship.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I would agree that we should depend on the Father but I don't find where it excludes scripture in as much as much of it came from the Father Himself.

I said scripture isnt an idol to get to the father. Just as jesus jsnt an idol to be worshiped to get to god. Both say only the father alone is worshiped. Jesus repeated the same thing moses said to people but they too started worshiping idols and not the father. To christians who place scripture inline with god, i see them doing exactly what jesus and moses taught against.

Additionally, I don't find where Jesus said don't receive what was written especially since he quoted it often.

I never said that. I said jesus said that even the prophets and apostles (hebrew scriptures) speaks on his behalf. In other words, why are you all looking to scripture. Scripture is saying exactly what im saying. They dont have the words to bring you eternal life. I-JESUS- am the Word (the Father's message) that brings you eternal life.

You guys are looking to the wrong source.

 

[Kenny]

I said scripture isnt an idol to get to the father. Just as jesus jsnt an idol to be worshiped to get to god. Both say only the father alone is worshiped. Jesus repeated the same thing moses said to people but they too started worshiping idols and not the father. To christians who place scripture inline with god, i see them doing exactly what jesus and moses taught against.

OK about scripture. However, scripture didn't have a problem with the worship of Jesus:

Rev 5:
7He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.
9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
12 In a loud voice they were saying: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

I never said that. I said jesus said that even the prophets and apostles (hebrew scriptures) speaks on his behalf. In other words, why are you all looking to scripture. Scripture is saying exactly what im saying. They dont have the words to bring you eternal life. I-JESUS- am the Word (the Father's message) that brings you eternal life.

You guys are looking to the wrong source.

That is true. I was wondering if you were going to quote that scripture. That is why I said... "word without heart" wouldn't work. In other words, without the relationship of Life manifested (Jesus), the words have nothing. But having the relationship, His words are spirit and life (John 6:33)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't quote as much scripture because I don't like using scripture of any religion for debates. I do, rather, hope you take what I say into consideration though because I think I remembered this by heart now I've repeated it so.

John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." You search scriptures as if they have eternal life; but even they testify of me.

Basically, you are searching scriptures as if the scriptures-the actual bible-itself brings eternal life rather than going to jesus himself. Scripture testifies about jesus. The father testifies about his son. Why would you go to scripture when both scripture and the father says go through jesus?

7He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.

I was going to quote and reply to your verses; but, I don't see how they relate to what you're saying. I rather you explain things in your own words. I am not christian; so, I have no reason to chastise you and think you are wrong. I just think if what you say is logical, it can be explained in a simple and straight forward way without needing to quote scripture all the time.

That is true. I was wondering if you were going to quote that scripture. That is why I said... "word without heart" wouldn't work. In other words, without the relationship of Life manifested (Jesus), the words have nothing. But having the relationship, His words are spirit and life (John 6:33)

I said that you don't need to have the holy spirit in you to understand scripture. It's not a magic book that has a pass code to it. I said, to live it, yes, the holy spirit according to christianity is required but to understand it in its spiritual language, no, it is not. Christianity is not special. Christian Romans throughout the centuries have been putting themselves in the center of the universe. At one time, we once thought we were in the center of all the universes. We have big egos; and, I'm hoping from belief, a christian can come down from that "this is the only special true belief" and take consideration of other points of view regardless if they disagree.

We can do that in various other subjects. Why not religion?

Believe and/or like it or not, I do feel I have a better understanding of scripture after being in the Church. It gives a certain perspective of not only christianity in a mainstream sense but actually being part of the history of christianity is totally different. It's not protestant where it feels new age; but, it's more being part of history when you're in Mass and all of that. The bible takes on a whole new view (and, no, Catholicism doesn't have bible studies like protestants; so, most of my bible studies as a Catholic was on my own). I can compare the bible with what I practiced, see the correlation (not contradiction), and it strengthened my faith.

I wish everyone had that experience. However, even now, I feel no different than talking about Buddhist suttras and if I were knowledgable of Hindu, Hindu suttas as well. Actually, Hindu sacred text is much easier and positive read about god than abrahamic texts; so, there are advantages of seeing sacredness of all scriptures not just be limited to one.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Anytime some one tries to make an allegory not literal, I usually stick that comment in. You have probably seen it before and will probably see it again. IMO, that is important to know, especially for Christians to know.

Are parables an example of stories that are not literally true but allegorical?

 

[Deeje]

I believe that Jesus rose in both the spirit and physically. If you notice that when Simon Peter went into the empty tomb of Jesus he saw the cloth that covered Jesus still in place so this indicates that Jesus rose in spirit through the cloth.

John 20:3-7
"So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself." (NASB)

You seem to be assuming something that isn't true according to the apostle John. The cloth covering Jesus' head was rolled up in a different place to the rest of the grave wrappings.

Yet the stone that blocked the tomb was rolled away which points to Jesus being a physical as well.

The presence of angels explains who rolled away the stone. Not that the stone needed to be removed for the resurrection to take place, but for the benefit of the disciples to see for themselves that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

If you know what the ancient Jews believed about death resurrection, you will understand why Jesus' body was not found in the tomb. Jews believed in a physical resurrection, so a body in the tomb would have given them a different message. Peter said that Jesus was..."put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit".
As a spirit, he would not have been resurrected in the body he sacrificed. But it was prophesied by King David..... as the apostle Peter said....“Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses." (Acts 2:29-32; Psalm 16:10)

Jesus' body was not going to suffer decay in the tomb (hades, meaning the grave)....he would be resurrected in a spirit body and his sacrificed fleshly body would be dealt with according to scripture.....it was never found.
He was not resurrected in a physical body but as a spirit being, he was able to materialize human form to demonstrate to his Jewish disciples that he was raised from the dead. Jews were not allowed to communicate with spirits, so Jesus never appeared to them in anything but fleshly form. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) Angels too materialized in human form at times.

When he appeared to the disciples they were in a locked room and Jesus suddenly appears and stands in the midst of them. Then he says to Thomas who is doubting that Jesus had risen to put his finger in the hole of his wound. He also states he is hungry and asks for something to eat which indicates he is a physical entity.

Yes, that was a very important aspect of his resurrection....it had to appear to be physical because of their expectations, but Jesus demonstrated abilities that the apostles had never seen before. That is why his disciples did not always recognize him, and only once did he 'appear' with wounds to a doubting Thomas. Jesus was tortured before his execution so he would have been a physical mess. No one else mentioned his wounds in other appearances.

The bible states that our physical bodies will also rise just as Jesus did. So somehow Jesus was a spirit in that he could suddenly appear and disappear out of nowhere and move through objects in our world, yet was also became a physical being that could be touched and needed to eat.

Yes exactly. Those chosen to rule with Christ in his kingdom will die and death like his, and be resurrected in a spirit body, just as he was. But I don't believe that all Christians are heaven bound.

1 Corinthians 15:50-53:
"Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality." (NASB)

In the Revelation given to the apostle John we see Christ and his bride bringing their kingdom rulership (New Jerusalem) to the earth, (to "men") which means that this heavenly kingdom with its chosen 'kings and priests' will have earthly subjects. (Revelation 20:6; Revelation 21:2-4)

 

[Deeje]

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

I can't imagine that the actual resurrection itself was much different to that of Lazarus. A call to come forth, and there he was, all still wrapped in his bindings. The only difference was that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit, not a man. The body he sacrificed was not in the tomb and the Jesus that was seen by literally thousands of people after his death was not always recognizable as the man he was before.

The nearest to that is the story of Mary Magdalene finding the empty tomb and being accosted by the risen Jesus. This leads onto the subsequent “Checking him out” and him showing them his wounds.
It seems strange that even Mary did not recognise him at first.

If he was raised as a spirit, then the bodies he materialized could have looked like anyone. The angels who appeared to Abraham before continuing on to Sodom, were for all intents and purposes, human. They ate and drank and spoke and walked like anyone else. There was obviously no striking difference in their appearance.

This raises various questions, that would require answers, to establish such an occurrence today.

Was he ever really Dead?

If Jesus did not really die, then the ransom was not paid and we are all still doomed. He said he would be "in the heart of the earth for three days and nights". (Matthew 12:38-40)

Just before Jesus' death, God's voice was heard concerning the glorification of his name in connection with Christ's role as Messiah......
John 12:29-33:
"So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” 33 But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die." (NASB)

We can be confident that Jesus actually died just like any other human.

Who opened the Tomb?

The angel. (Matthew 28:2) The Romans had posted guards to make sure no one tampered with the body. (Matthew 27:62-66)
The guards fainted at the sight of the angel. (Matthew 28:3-4)

Where did he get his new clothes from?

Angels materialized with clothing. Obviously it is as easy to materialize garments as it is to make flesh and blood bodies.

Where was he during those three days?

Jesus said he was in the tomb for the whole time, just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish. He was actually dead. (Matthew 12:38-40)

Is three days sufficient to heal his wounds for him to be able to walk?

Since the body he sacrificed was in all likelihood taken away by God so as to fulfill prophesy, the body he materialized was a fresh and healthy specimen.
There was no healing necessary. The body he materialized to present his wounds to Thomas was a 'special order'....just for Thomas' benefit.

Was the person on the cross, the same person who showed his wounds.?

Same person....different body.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

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

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

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for your response. Having started this OP I am reminded how important a belief in a literally resurrected Christ is to many Christians.

Christ did appear to Paul. He reported on this; "But as I was traveling and getting near to Damascus, about midday, suddenly out of heaven a great light flashed all around me, and I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me: ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ I answered: ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me: ‘I am Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ, whom you are persecuting."
(Acts 22:6-8)

It is very important to consider a few points around this:

This event happened long after the 40 days of alleged resurrection sightings.

Paul did not see Jesus but heard His voice. Paul nonetheless describes this as Christ appearing to him and compares this experience with other 'resurrection experiences'.

It therefore seems more plausible to consider this as a mystical experience rather than Paul seeing the literally resurrected Jesus.

I think to claim the miracle of the resurrection didn't occur because it was...miraculous, is unconvincing

I agree. God is all-Powerful and omnipotent. The problem is that we have a physically resurrected Jesus rising through the stratosphere to join His father in the heavens. However most religionists, myself included do not see heaven as a literal place up in the sky. Do you?

It should also be noted in scripture that Flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:50, John 3:3

in the light of strong evidence that it did occur. As Paul testified: "But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and your faith is also in vain. Moreover, we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we have given witness against God by saying that he raised up the Christ, whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up. For if the dead are not to be raised up, neither has Christ been raised up. Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you remain in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:14-17)

This is highlighting the importance of the resurrection, but I would argue it is the spiritual resurrection, not the physical that is far more important and has profound implications for each of us. It enables us all to rise from the death of unbelief to have new life in Christ.

I would be interested to hear any other reasons you have that a literal resurrection is the only way to consider this?

 

[CG Didymus]

they aren't vague.

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree and say they are vague. The NT takes verses out of the Jewish Bible and makes them prophetic. And now the Baha'i Faith takes verses out of NT and makes them prophetic. My all time favorite is how they make the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the prophecy of the coming of their prophet.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Neither. Nothing literal about something that contradicts the gospel of Jesus which was the Tanach. As long as one needs the NT and faith as evidence, nothing can be literal.

We agree on the authority and authenticity of the Tanach and that Jesus was not physically resurrected.

 

[arthra]

No, we have our own translation, which is a whole different thing. If you are familiar with the languages of the Bible, you will know why. Mormons have their own "scripture" and so do Baha'i's and many others

Just as a point of information "Deeje"... The only "scriptures" Baha'is have are the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and these Writings deal with a wide variety of topics ... some concern commentaries of a few verses of the Bible or contain references to the Quranic verses and stand alone as Writings but we do not have a special translation of the Bible as such.

See:

Baha'i Writings...

 

[Deeje]

Just as a point of information "Deeje"... The only "scriptures" Baha'is have are the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah and these Writings deal with a wide variety of topics ... some concern commentaries of a few verses of the Bible or contain references to the Quranic verses and stand alone as Writings but we do not have a special translation of the Bible as such.

I appreciate your comment arthra, but what I was getting at is that anyone's 'holy writings' are viewed as their "scripture".
Muslims have the Koran, Hindus have the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, Buddhists have the writings of the Buddha, Jews have the Tanakh and Christians have the "Bible" which contains both Hebrew and Christian scripture. Other faiths have their sacred writings as well. They can't all be true.

What I was saying is that there is only one "Bible".....it might have many translations, but to us, it is one book from a single source. Translating into other languages requires a deep understanding of the original languages. I am assuming that the Bab and Baha'u'llah's writings were not originally in English? So they required translation also....?

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

Baha'i seems like an attempt to be all things to all people.....a nice thought perhaps, but certainly not supported by Christian scripture. The Bible is about choices, not unifying the world through political involvement. Jesus said his kingdom was "no part of this world" and that this world is going to "pass away" at God's command. (John 15:18-21; Revelation 21:1-4)

When God introduces his kingdom rule, it will be by force because human rulers will not yield peacefully to his incoming kingdom. (Daniel 2:44) God's kingdom will crush all human rulership out of existence and replace it with his own. This is the rulership that God intended humankind to have in the first place.

Your religion confuses me greatly. How can Baha'u'llah be the returned Christ? That means that the second coming has already happened without all the things that Jesus promised....no more death, suffering or pain. What miracles did he perform to prove that he was sent by God? Jesus was endowed with the power of holy spirit to cure the sick and raise the dead. He miraculously fed thousands and was resurrected from the dead so that thousands of people saw him.
What did your prophet do to convince people that he was God's messenger?