Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Trailblazer]

Bahai needs to somehow push a square peg into a round hole to achieve it's aim of showing that Bahai is at the top of the religious pyramid, and that all should forsake past faiths for the true way....... the Bahai way!

Such contrivance!

Baha’is do not believe any religion is better than any other religion. There is only One God and One Religion of God that is revealed successively throughout the ages:

“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future. Let him that seeketh, attain it; and as to him that hath refused to seek it—verily, God is Self-Sufficient, above any need of His creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 136

Baha’is do not believe any Manifestation of God (Prophet) is better than any other Manifestation of God (Prophet):

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

It is the other religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam who believe their Prophet is better and that their religion is better and is the Only Way. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[oldbadger]

Baha’is do not believe any religion is better than any other religion. There is only One God and One Religion of God that is revealed successively throughout the ages:

.......... but Bahais believe that Bahai is THE RELIGION FOR TODAY.......... which of course would mean that Bahais believe that their religion is the Best Religion for Today.

It's best to tell it as it is.

Baha’is do not believe any Manifestation of God (Prophet) is better than any other Manifestation of God (Prophet):

....and then Bahauallah wrote that he alone was the Ordained Manidestation for this age, so clearly Bahais believe that all other faiths should join with him, the Best Prophet for Today.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh we've woken up all right.
And we smelled your coffee.

 

[Trailblazer]

If................. !
But I even doubt the 'if'..............

Your doubts do not change reality.

IYour 60% figure just is not accurate, but in any event I cannot see Christians leaving their faith for Bahaism once they realise that Bahauallah did not believe in a Resurrected Jesus.

Of course they wouldn't... They believe that Jesus resurrected and ascended and will return. The only reason they cling to the resurrected Jesus is because they cling to the return of the same Jesus and obviously if the body of Jesus died the same Jesus cannot return... like duh.

Bahais don't believe in the existence of Evil either, which is another rather large void for Bahai to somehow breach.

We believe that evil is the absence of good and we do not believe Satan is a "being" external to us... We believe that Satan (the Evil One) is our lower selfish nature.

“Watch over yourselves, for the Evil One is lying in wait, ready to entrap you. Gird yourselves against his wicked devices, and, led by the light of the name of the All-Seeing God, make your escape from the darkness that surroundeth you. Let your vision be world-embracing, rather than confined to your own self. The Evil One is he that hindereth the rise and obstructeth the spiritual progress of the children of men.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 94

That is what Jesus was referring to in these verses:

Matthew 16:23 “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

 

[Trailblazer]

That's another huge problem.
Christians don't believe that, they believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

Christians believe that Jesus was both the Son of man and the Son of God... so do Baha'is but we do not believe that Jesus was the biological Son of God but rather "Son" that represents Jesus' relationship to His Father.

 

[Trailblazer]

You didn't quote the Bahai Prophet!
Only the claims of the Bahai Prophet could possibly be worth focusing upon.
You have no evidence at all. True.

I was not quoting that as part of the evidence. It was to point out that people do not even bother to go into the next room to LOOK at the evidence!

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

 

[Trailblazer]

.......... but Bahais believe that Bahai is THE RELIGION FOR TODAY.......... which of course would mean that Bahais believe that their religion is the Best Religion for Today.

It's best to tell it as it is.

Yes, we believe it is the religion for Today. Here is the logical reason:

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

....and then Bahauallah wrote that he alone was the Ordained Manidestation for this age, so clearly Bahais believe that all other faiths should join with him, the Best Prophet for Today.

Yes, and there is a logical reason for that too:

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

Oh we've woken up all right.
And we smelled your coffee.

Fine, if you want to drink old coffee that is past dated instead of fresh coffee, that's your choice.
But if you are a deist, why are you even drinking coffee at all, since you do not believe God sends Messengers?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you saying that Abdu'l Baha's interpretation would not be on topic? Supposedly, it is the only correct interpretation of the event. Present it here and let's see how it fits. I think it makes the gospel stories ridiculous.

Abdul'baha's explanation is pure and simple, lets look at early century writings the Church has rejected.

Such as the Gospel of Peter - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Suggests that Christ ascended from the Cross;

"The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. (We shall see an echo of this idea in the Qur'an.) Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence."

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Nope............
I have no aversion to Christianity, it's just a lack of faith. Why don't you read my posts to Grandiseur and others?

And I do not debate strongly against the Islamic faith.

But I'm very careful now when I read Bahai claims.

The Baha'i Faith claims that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead. Is that a claim you should carefully read?

 

[Dawnofhope]

yes, i do i believe in everything that is in the bible and how orthodox explain the bible.

Which orthodox people would they be? There are so many with contradictory beliefs. Who do we chose?

 

[Dawnofhope]

No you're not - you are reading it allegorically when it suits and literally when that supports your presuppositions.

Any scholar or student of the bible reads some scripture literally and some allegorically. There is no one that reads the entire bible either literally, or allegorically, not even the fundamentalists.

That is the whole basis of Baha'i reinterpretations of the Bible - you claim at one and the same time that the Biblical record that we now have is compromised by time and inaccurate transmission

I have not removed one verse from the bible. Any bible scholar appreciates the importance of history, context and viewing the bible as a whole.

so that any verses that seem to cast doubt on Baha'u'llah's claim to be the returned Messiah can conveniently be overlooked

There's no problem establishing Baha'u'llah as the returned Messiah other than being completely off the topic of this thread. Why not start a thread to investigate Baha'u'llah's Messianic claims if that's what you wish to talk about.

and yet also that you hold to a literalist conservative Christian interpretation that holds - with almost zero genuine scriptural support

The Christians have been studying their own religion closely for nearly two thousand years. I believe they have much worthwhile to say. Why would you think they don't?

to a futurist eschatological position that permits Baha'u'llah to fulfill "prophecies" that were really accounts of events that had (when they were written down) already happened in antiquity.

I have clearly established the weakness of the preterist position. It totally ignores long term history and does exactly what you acuse the Baha'is of doing. Beyond that, there is no redemption for the God's chose people. The majority of Christain scholars reject it, and for good reasons.

You have not answered ANY of the questions I posed without attempting to straddle the impossibly wide chasm between literalist futurism and allegorical preterism - your arguments all fall flat if you take either position, but you are again trying (in the time-honored Baha'i fashion) to have your cake and ha'penny.

I've answered all your questions, but clearly not to your satisfaction. The majority of Christians would agree that the gospels concern both the first century and the future.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh please Adrian - your Christian "friends" really support your view that the preaching of the Good News culminated in the arrival of a 19th century Persian prophet most of them have never heard of??? Like I said - you are just trying to have your cake and ha'penny. You can't...

If you believe the literal and futurist interpretation of Biblical prophecies then you have zero evidence of a 19th century fulfillment (the Jews were not restored to Israel then, wars and rumours of wars happened for sure but they did in the 18th century and again in the 20th and continue into the 21st century, the preaching of the Good News continued in the 19th century but that too had gone on before and continued after...there was nothing more significant in the 19th century 'fulfillment of biblical prophecy than the "Great Disappointment" that Baha'is now try to claim as a 'victory').

If you take an allegorical interpretation, there is no reason to assume it wasn't all fulfilled symbolically in the establishment of the Christian Church in the 1st century.

And if you do the unthinkable and take an honest appraisal then there is no reason to assume that the Bible writers even remotely imagined they were writing about far future events - not even one jot of evidence for that idea.

This of course is a humanistic perspective.

Like the Christians, Baha'is assume there is a God that is a personal God and concerned with His creation. That God has established an Eternal Covement with humanity through the Hebrew peoples. There are great people inspired by God, who are granted a glimpse of the future. They are called prophets.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Unfortunately, they'd have to be idiots to write about how the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples when the disciples and all the other believers are the resurrected body of Christ. Then after they wrote the gospels, the idiot followers forgot they were the resurrected Christ and believed Jesus had risen from the dead.

But don't pretend that you respect their beliefs. Baha'is have called them man-made and superstitious.

Idiots, no. Fools for Christ definitely.

We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
1 Corinthians 10-13

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty
1 Corinthians 1:23-27

Does the resurrection of Christ confound you?

 

[kaat]

Many Christians believe Jesus was crucified and literally rose from the dead. An empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus before many as recorded in the gospels are cited as irrefutable proofs by conservative Christians.

Dr Bart Ehrhart, Christian and biblical scholar has argued:

'Even if we want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that belief is a theological belief. You can’t prove the resurrection. It’s not susceptible to historical evidence. It’s faith. Believers believe it and take it on faith, and history cannot prove it.'

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

The resurrection as part of an allegorical narrative assists us understand the eternal nature of the soul and the power of Christ's Teachings to bestow new spiritual upon those who follow Him.

So did Christ really rise from the dead and what's the evidence He did? Is there evidence to support He didn't?

With all due respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, why is Christ's Resurrection so fundamental to Christian belief?

I don't get a thread like this. Are non-Christians allowed to comment? If not, please ignore or delete.

I would always start far earlier, wherever doubts begin. For me: what is the evidence that Christ was the son of a (presumed) God? And that he had all these magical powers? I mean we're basing these speculations on 1500+ year old oral and written stories.

And if you question the validity of resurrection, why don't you question Christ's ability to miraculously heal people, or multiply loaves and fishes, etc.? Myths generally grow larger over time.

As a reference to modern times, all those "healing power" shows on TV are absolutely bogus. It's well-known how they scam us with planted people, denial of truly sick people, etc.. A load of rubbish. I'd tend to say: spend more time practicing the Golden Rule!

Sorry, that wasn't very consructive.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I don't get a thread like this. Are non-Christians allowed to comment? If not, please ignore or delete.

I would always start far earlier, wherever doubts begin. For me: what is the evidence that Christ was the son of a (presumed) God? And that he had all these magical powers? I mean we're basing these speculations on 1500+ year old oral and written stories.

And if you question the validity of resurrection, why don't you question Christ's ability to miraculously heal people, or multiply loaves and fishes, etc.? Myths generally grow larger over time.

As a reference to modern times, all those "healing power" shows on TV are absolutely bogus. It's well-known how they scam us with planted people, denial of truly sick people, etc.. A load of rubbish. I'd tend to say: spend more time practicing the Golden Rule!

Sorry, that wasn't very consructive.

I understood the topic to be whether the original beliefs were in a literal bodily resurrection or if some kind of spiritual resurrection was intended with the literal aspect evolving later. What may or may not have really happened is not the issue.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh I see... You were a Christian before you were a Baha'i.
It happens.

I was a catholic turned atheist. I wrote a chapter called ‘Proofs and evidences of the non existence of God’ to disprove Abdu’l-Baha word for word in SOme Answered Questions.

Then I got to a part I couldn’t quite understand and when I did finally understand it I realized Abdu’l- Baha was right and I was wrong.

Won’t be taking Him on again that’s for sure. Lol

 

[loverofhumanity]

When you stumble over things you should push them out of the way for the sake of those following behind.

I just took what was in front of me and ran with it in case somebody else came across it and got to it first leaving me empty handed!

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think whatever differences Christians had on the meanings of the Gospels, love and brotherhood should always have come first and they should have remained one religion undivided with people allowed to have their own personal views.

They could have remained one undivided Christianity just by having Jesus and the Bible as a common foundation and love as the overriding principle of their Faith.

Unfortunately the ‘I’m right your wrong mentality prevailed and egos caused unnecessary division.

 

[sayak83]

Your doubts do not change reality.

Of course they wouldn't... They believe that Jesus resurrected and ascended and will return. The only reason they cling to the resurrected Jesus is because they cling to the return of the same Jesus and obviously if the body of Jesus died the same Jesus cannot return... like duh.

We believe that evil is the absence of good and we do not believe Satan is a "being" external to us... We believe that Satan (the Evil One) is our lower selfish nature.

“Watch over yourselves, for the Evil One is lying in wait, ready to entrap you. Gird yourselves against his wicked devices, and, led by the light of the name of the All-Seeing God, make your escape from the darkness that surroundeth you. Let your vision be world-embracing, rather than confined to your own self. The Evil One is he that hindereth the rise and obstructeth the spiritual progress of the children of men.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 94

That is what Jesus was referring to in these verses:

Matthew 16:23 “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

I thought Jesus would return as big carnivorous lamb.

 

[oldbadger]

........ like duh.

Really?
You're another bahai who insults, I see.

We believe that evil is the absence of good and we do not believe Satan is a "being" external to us

So you don't believe in the existence of Evil or Satan, which is what I already referred to........ but I'll leave the insults to you.

 

[oldbadger]

Christians believe that Jesus was both the Son of man and the Son of God... so do Baha'is but we do not believe that Jesus was the biological Son of God but rather "Son" that represents Jesus' relationship to His Father.

The vast majority of Christians (save a small % of Unitarians) believe in God-the-Father, God-the-Son and God-the-Holy-Ghost.

Bahai does not believe in any of the Trinity Creed.