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

[Muffled]

Because we like zombies!


Next!

I believe Jesus was never a zombie.

 

[Thief]

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?

sorry to get here....sooooooooo late

but if He is still with His body.....He is incognito
really deep incognito

and His ascension went WHERE....????

 

[Thief]

Clearly the apostle Paul argues fervently for the importance of the resurrection. However if you consider St Paul's words earlier in the chapter we read:

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 15:6-8

This is a problem for a conservative Christian worldview as Paul never witnessed the resurrected Christ, instead he heard the words of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:1-9

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

Paul's experience was long after the 40 days of Jesus's alleged appearances after His crucifixion. So Paul did not see the resurrected Jesus, yet he likens his non-resurrection experience to those that supposedly did see their Lord. It therefore makes sense Paul in Corinthians is writing of resurrection experiences that were a mystical experience or part of an allegorical story, don't you think? This allegorical narrative and/or mystical experience still places Christ's resurrection as central to Christian belief. It also emphasises the spiritual over the physical.

i always thought the story had a touch of 'stroke' in it
(not accounting for the audio witnesses nearby)

 

[Enoch07]

I believe Jesus was never a zombie.

I'll help ya out with a word for the day!

Definition of FACETIOUS

The OP asked a silly question, so they received a silly answer.

 

[12jtartar]

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?

adrian009,
It is not possible to be a Christian and not believe the Bible. Jesus said that God’s word is truth, John 17:17. The Bible says that God Inspired the Bible to be written, and that The Holy Spirit guided men as they spoke, 2Timothy 3:16,17, 2Peter 1:20,21. My belief is; if you call God and Jesus, along with The Holy Spirit liers, You have, most likely sinned against The Holy Spirit, and there is NO forgiveness for that, Matthew 12:31,32. Just hope and pray that The Almighty God, understands that you have not thought this idea through, so God, will, most likely forgive anyone, doing this, without understanding what is written.
As for proof that Jesus, and all the others that were resurrected in the past, the Bible says that to prove anything, there must be two or three witnesses, Deuteronomy 19:15. All the Bible writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures are Witnesses of Jesus resurrection, Acts 1:1-3, 1Corinthians 15:3-8. Then read verses 12-23, which tell us that if Jesus was not resurrected, we are hopeless and Christianity is nothing. Romans 5:6-11, tells about our living because Christ was resurrected.
Also this world is to be judged by Jesus, Matthew 25:31-46, Acts 17:30,31.
Jesus died as a corresponding Ransom for us, and Jesus ransomed back to us what Adam and Eve lost, everlasting life in a paradise earth. If Jesus was not resurrected then no one will be resurrected, and when we die we would all stay in the ground, but by Jesus dying for all who put their belief in him as their savior, who actually died for them, they can then be resurrected back to earth. This is what John 3:16, which is called, The Gospels in Miniature, 1John 2:1-6. All God’s promises are based on Jesus being resurrected and living forever, Romans 6:9, Isaiah 9:6,7, Daniel 7:13,14, Luke 1:30-33.
The only way history proves anything is by the written words!!
Many historians say that there is actually more proof of Jesus than there is of Abraham Lincoln.

 

[CG Didymus]

For me, the gospel of John's author is uncertain, but would most likely be a second or third generation Christian intimately acquainted with the stories of Jesus passed down by word of mouth, and most likely the early synoptic gospels too. John provides us with an indispensible portrait of Jesus. There are no parables as with the synoptics, but the stories themselves are very allegorical thus conveying messages of profound spiritual significance as the parables of Jesus do.



I agree. Obviously I understand the resurrection of Jesus differently.



I do not believe this to be an historic portrayal but an embellished narrative to assist us understand the transformative power of the Word of God upon those who received and accepted HIs message.



The spirit of Jesus lives though His body be dead.

The body of Christ transformed.

How is the church the Body of Christ?



No one on this thread is arguing for gnosticism.



If you are looking for points of disagreement between us, I don't think you'll find it in these verses. What's your point?



You are reading too much into these verses. The author of Luke is providing testimony about Christ and John the Baptist. There is nothing that indicates Luke was an eyewitness or even a first generation Christian. Most scholars agree that He wasn't.

"For me, the gospel of John's author is uncertain, but would most likely be a second or third generation Christian intimately acquainted with the stories of Jesus passed down by word of mouth, and most likely the early synoptic gospels too."

"I do not believe this to be an historic portrayal but an embellished narrative..."
​

So the gospels are not written by the manifestation, nor by the apostles, and have "embellishments" added by the writers? Yet, Baha'is believe it to be the Word of God... with some "spiritual" symbolism added in to the interpretation by the Baha'is to help make sense of all the problematic teachings and events recorded in the gospels?

Like I've said many times... So for 2000 years Christians didn't know, nor understand, nor teach the truth about their own Scriptures, but were wrong about most of their major doctrines and beliefs, especially the resurrection?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"For me, the gospel of John's author is uncertain, but would most likely be a second or third generation Christian intimately acquainted with the stories of Jesus passed down by word of mouth, and most likely the early synoptic gospels too."

"I do not believe this to be an historic portrayal but an embellished narrative..."
​

So the gospels are not written by the manifestation, nor by the apostles, and have "embellishments" added by the writers? Yet, Baha'is believe it to be the Word of God... with some "spiritual" symbolism added in to the interpretation by the Baha'is to help make sense of all the problematic teachings and events recorded in the gospels?

Like I've said many times... So for 2000 years Christians didn't know, nor understand, nor teach the truth about their own Scriptures, but were wrong about most of their major doctrines and beliefs, especially the resurrection?

If Baha'u'llah is who He said He is, then the answer is that man has chosen the way they wished to interpret what was recorded as the sayings of Jesus the Christ.

I see that the Bible adequatly warns this would be so. No one likes to think that the warnings apply to their own thoughts, it is when we conceed we do not have the required knowledge, that we can let go and learn anew.

Just as Christ Disciples had to do and all the followers of Muhammad had to do. Those that cling to old thought, persecute the Messenger and Message they await, they pride in their knowledge.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

OK...... fair enough. I don't challenge people's Faiths or religions, I only question claims of those that sell their faith or religions.
The first hiccup for me is that I don't believe that the Galilean handworker and healing magi Yeshua BarYosef was a Prophet or Manifestation of God, nor the Baptist before him, so the Pyramid leading to the Bab and Bahauallah collapsed before they arrived, well, for me it did.

Hmmmmm.... Why is that? Admittedly, I cannot say that I would believe in the Pyramid that leads up to the Bab and Baha’u’llah either unless I had discovered the Baha’i Faith first. Mind you, I was not brought up in a religious home and I do not even recall thinking about God before I became a Baha’i. I had never even opened a Bible. In fact, before I came to the Delphi Forums five years ago I did not even know what OT and NT meant. I simply had no interest in religion, not even Baha’i, until about five years ago. Then I got interested in Christianity because I was talking to Christians, and I also needed to know something about the Bible because Baha’u’llah referred to it and claimed to be the return of Christ. It took off from there.

Bahauallah wrote that the UHJ is infallible, and that if it decides that 'up' is 'down', then it is, (or something like that.)

You are correct. That is why I said it is not that important, but it is still important. The members of the UHJ are still humans and they are infallible as individuals. It is only when they are in session that they are infallible. This is problematic to some people but I accept it because Bahaullah wrote it. As such, I just try to understand things I do not understand rather than thinking I know more than the UHJ... that would be really arrogant of me.

Fair enough. Most of my earlier posts showed that I only take interest in what the Prophets wrote, and not the interpretations and jiggling of any others. But it seemed to me as if the schisms were mostly caused by the writings of those that came after.

I am also most interested in what Bahaullah wrote, but I accept what Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote as part of the “authoritative writings” of the Bahai Faith, since they are the appointed successors: Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant

You are very observant. The schisms were mostly caused by the writings of those that came after. However, nobody will succeed in dividing the Baha’i Faith because of the Covenant.

Ah....... Days are always followed by nights.

The Yin-Yan of all is a revolving returning circulating life, without which all is lost, either physically or philosophically.

The Universe will not stop for Bahai, the seasons will not end, and nightime will come................. but then I'm a Deist.

What do you mean by night? What do you think will happen?

One reason I believe the day will not be followed by night is because of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah will prevent the schisms we had in former religions...

Another reason it will never be night again is because we are now living in the Promised Age, the Golden Age of humanity, so we will not ever go back to the former age, which was called the Prophetic Age, the age that ended with Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets.

“God’s purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it......” The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

No, the universe will not stop with Baha’i because there will be many Messengers of God that will come in the future.

“Repudiating the claim of any religion to be the final revelation of God to man, disclaiming finality for His own Revelation, Bahá’u’lláh inculcates the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth, the continuity of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of religious experience.” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 108

It is always nice talking with you. I wish I too was retired so I would have more time. I am old enough but not brave enough to take the final leap...

 

[Dawnofhope]

If the NT writers were so badly mistaken about the resurrection that they supposed had actually happened right in front of their own eyes - on what possible basis can we then claim that they were nevertheless invariably spot on in regard to details of the far distant future?

On one hand they were recording the words of Jesus that had been passed down through oral traditions, on the other weaving His words into a narrative about the life of their Messiah that had also evolved through oral traditions. By the time the gospels were recorded, the narrative was heavily influenced by Paul's teachings to the gentiles.

 

[oldbadger]

Hmmmmm.... Why is that?

Well, for instance, on RF there is a wide and varied range of beliefs, faiths and religions. I do my best to read about as many as I can. People should be free to follow their beliefs. But where any resulting actions might be bad for others, or where the religion is being proselytised or 'sold', then, sure, questions and challenges seem fair on the open debate forums.

Admittedly, I cannot say that I would believe in the Pyramid that leads up to the Bab and Baha’u’llah either unless I had discovered the Baha’i Faith first. Mind you, I was not brought up in a religious home and I do not even recall thinking about God before I became a Baha’i. I had never even opened a Bible. In fact, before I came to the Delphi Forums five years ago I did not even know what OT and NT meant. I simply had no interest in religion, not even Baha’i, until about five years ago. Then I got interested in Christianity because I was talking to Christians, and I also needed to know something about the Bible because Baha’u’llah referred to it and claimed to be the return of Christ. It took off from there.

OK....... and it's my perception that the 'Great Beings' and this thread are linked to the Bahai religion because of the 'stacking' or 'pyramid' effect, this thread supporting all through the Bahai belief that Jesus was not resurrected nor is he a God, there being no Trinity. Personall I don't think that Yeshua was resurrected or a God, although as a Deist I believe that both he and you are a part of God, because everything is God.

You are correct. That is why I said it is not that important, but it is still important. The members of the UHJ are still humans and they are infallible as individuals. It is only when they are in session that they are infallible. This is problematic to some people but I accept it because Bahaullah wrote it. As such, I just try to understand things I do not understand rather than thinking I know more than the UHJ... that would be really arrogant of me.

Well, it sure is problematic for me. A World controlled by 9 people who believe that their union is holy and can do no wrong, and somewhat difficult to remove from power, is a World exposed to insecurity. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We don't all believe that a theocracy could be holy.

I am also most interested in what Bahaullah wrote, but I accept what Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote as part of the “authoritative writings” of the Bahai Faith, since they are the appointed successors: Bahá’u’lláh and His Covenant

You are very observant. The schisms were mostly caused by the writings of those that came after. However, nobody will succeed in dividing the Baha’i Faith because of the Covenant.

That looks like a problem, because the UHJ seems to have excommunicated or defamed some very honest and dedicated people in the past. There seems to be a lot of them. That's schism. And some seem to have been excluded because they delivered more facts abouyt Bahai than the UHJ liked, which suggests that the UHJ is holding back............ which it does seem to be doing.

What do you mean by night? What do you think will happen?

One reason I believe the day will not be followed by night is because of the Covenant of Baha’u’llah will prevent the schisms we had in former religions...

Clearly Bahai is experiencing schisms all the time. There are about 3000 differing Christian Creeds and Churches, and in the distant future that may be the case with Bahai. There are less schisms in Islam, but even so these probably add up to about 50?

Another reason it will never be night again is because we are now living in the Promised Age, the Golden Age of humanity, so we will not ever go back to the former age, which was called the Prophetic Age, the age that ended with Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets.

The Golden Age?
Can I invite you to review the list of horrific wars, genocides, injustices and mistakes of the last 170 years? Science has made the World a very dirty place as well, and Bahai missed the coming ecological results, at least I never heard of any direct reference to such.
There is no Bahai Golden Age
Winter is coming!

Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously radiant—so radiant that no eye can visualize it......” The Promised Day is Come, p. 116

No, the universe will not stop with Baha’i because there will be many Messengers of God that will come in the future.

“Repudiating the claim of any religion to be the final revelation of God to man, disclaiming finality for His own Revelation, Bahá’u’lláh inculcates the basic principle of the relativity of religious truth, the continuity of Divine Revelation, the progressiveness of religious experience.” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 108

That's fine for Bahais to believe, but showing written promises to the World cannot prove anything.
All these beliefs don't seem to have produced a more holy lifestyle in the Bahais that I have known. I've known some naughty Bahais, you know.

It is always nice talking with you. I wish I too was retired so I would have more time. I am old enough but not brave enough to take the final leap...

If you need little, and have enough, then you're free to choose. For some people their employment is their lifeblood. I ceased my career in every way on a single day in December 2011 and have never looked back or taken any interest in returning, because once off that bus technology left me behind. I still get occasional requests to return. I've never regretted leaving.

 

[Ubon]

Chritians cannot prove the resurrection took place and non Christians cannot disprove it.
I Cannot Prove Buddha obtained Enlightenment either however I like and follow the teachings.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So the gospels are not written by the manifestation, nor by the apostles, and have "embellishments" added by the writers? Yet, Baha'is believe it to be the Word of God... with some "spiritual" symbolism added in to the interpretation by the Baha'is to help make sense of all the problematic teachings and events recorded in the gospels?

Like I've said many times... So for 2000 years Christians didn't know, nor understand, nor teach the truth about their own Scriptures, but were wrong about most of their major doctrines and beliefs, especially the resurrection?

The stories of the life and teachings of Jesus were passed down through word of mouth until they were finally written down. Those first gospels were written at least 20 years after Christ was crucified and in all likelihood much later.

So if we were to recite the gospels each one from start to finish the length of each one would be no more than 2 1/2 hour hours. Its not along time.

How Long Does It Take To Read Each Book Of The Bible? - J.A. Medders

Some skilled orators like Paul would have held the audiences attention for hours on end. Every story teller knows how important the ending is. There is drama and climax.

I don't believe there was any intent to mislead the audience. Its just the way the story unfolded. The OT is full of embellished stories. Why should the story of Christ be any different?

In my heart I feel nothing but love and admiration of Christ, the apostles, and the early gospel writers. Then again, I'm not looking at the gospels as some kind of history book, providing detailed and accurate accounts. If that was your story telling style, your audience would soon be bored witless. Instead the stories carry the spirit of Christ's Message that inspire and invigorate lifeless hearts.

Of course Jesus warned about how His message would become distorted and corrupted through the parable of the tares.

Parable of the Tares - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

sorry to get here....sooooooooo late

but if He is still with His body.....He is incognito
really deep incognito

and His ascension went WHERE....????

Thanks for joining. Sometimes a few words from a poet say it all.

 

[Neb]

For me, the gospel of John's author is uncertain, but would most likely be a second or third generation Christian intimately acquainted with the stories of Jesus passed down by word of mouth, and most likely the early synoptic gospels too. John provides us with an indispensible portrait of Jesus. There are no parables as with the synoptics, but the stories themselves are very allegorical thus conveying messages of profound spiritual significance as the parables of Jesus do.

If I provide evidence, based on the bible, as a proof of my claim then you should provide a counter evidence that my claim is not valid. Since you’re the one challenging my claim then it becomes your responsibility to provide counter-evidence otherwise you’re just making an assumption that my claim is not valid.

If you are looking for points of disagreement between us, I don't think you'll find it in these verses. What's your point?

The word we are looking for, again, is, “MANIFESTED [G5746]” and as I have explained before this word means to make visible. A good example is, as you read these WORDS your eyes are actually witnessing it for the VERY first time, right? One cannot say that it was a different person, other than you, three years from now, who actually saw these words first. So, if you would write something about this event, you would write it on how you have seen it or how it was “MANIFESTED” right in front of you by using the pronoun “Me, Myself, and I”. Now, if someone is writing, other than you, one cannot use the pronoun “Me, Myself, and I” because they were not the first one who actually saw it or witnessed it, instead one should use the pronoun "he saw or she saw", right? And then you would argue, it's hearsay, right?

Let’s say a 2nd or 3rd generation wrote the epistle, do you think they would use the pronoun “we/us” if they have NOT actually seen, with their eyes, the Lord Jesus, instead of the pronoun “they” who actually have seen, with their eyes, the Lord Jesus? Again, you would argue, it's hearsay.

 

[Neb]

"For me, the gospel of John's author is uncertain, but would most likely be a second or third generation Christian intimately acquainted with the stories of Jesus passed down by word of mouth, and most likely the early synoptic gospels too."

"I do not believe this to be an historic portrayal but an embellished narrative..."
​

So the gospels are not written by the manifestation, nor by the apostles, and have "embellishments" added by the writers? Yet, Baha'is believe it to be the Word of God... with some "spiritual" symbolism added in to the interpretation by the Baha'is to help make sense of all the problematic teachings and events recorded in the gospels?

Like I've said many times... So for 2000 years Christians didn't know, nor understand, nor teach the truth about their own Scriptures, but were wrong about most of their major doctrines and beliefs, especially the resurrection?

Religions that are based on the bible or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with endless ADD-ONS to their doctrines, as it aged, like offering secret knowledge on how a person could be saved, is not really new at all. It's been going on since the 2nd century. It's a way to challenge the apostles’ writing or gospel. So, by adding this so-called secret knowledge into their doctrines, they become more religious than others and the more religious a group becomes, the more they attract the ignorant to join them. It’s like mixing different beliefs in a casserole and sell it to the people. The simplicity of TRUE CHRISTIANITY is being judged along with the others because there people like you who can’t tell the difference. Christianity is about the death/crucifixion, burial, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. PERIOD. NO ADD-ONS NEEDED.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Religions that are based on the bible or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with endless ADD-ONS to their doctrines, as it aged, like offering secret knowledge on how a person could be saved, is not really new at all. It's been going on since the 2nd century. It's a way to challenge the apostles’ writing or gospel. So, by adding this so-called secret knowledge into their doctrines, they become more religious than others and the more religious a group becomes, the more they attract the ignorant to join them. It’s like mixing different beliefs in a casserole and sell it to the people. The simplicity of TRUE CHRISTIANITY is being judged along with the others because there people like you who can’t tell the difference. Christianity is about the death/crucifixion, burial, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. PERIOD. NO ADD-ONS NEEDED.

Don't leave out what Jesus said about living righteously.

 

[CG Didymus]

If Baha'u'llah is who He said He is, then the answer is that man has chosen the way they wished to interpret what was recorded as the sayings of Jesus the Christ.

I see that the Bible adequatly warns this would be so. No one likes to think that the warnings apply to their own thoughts, it is when we conceed we do not have the required knowledge, that we can let go and learn anew.

Just as Christ Disciples had to do and all the followers of Muhammad had to do. Those that cling to old thought, persecute the Messenger and Message they await, they pride in their knowledge.

Regards Tony

It's one thing to say the early Christians misinterpreted the gospels and epistles, but Baha'is have said that the gospels have been written by second or third hand witnesses and the writers have added embellishments. The insinuation is they are not accurate.

When it comes to the resurrection, the gospels present it as a real event. The early Christians taught it was a real event. So, if the Baha'is are correct, the writers and the early Christians both were wrong. The misinterpretation was by the gospel writers themselves, and the early Christians only built on that and added more things Baha'is say are false.

So, if Baha'is are right, the New Testament itself is a misinterpretation of what Jesus really said and did. The worst being the phony belief that he came back to life. The Baha'i truth is that Jesus is dead and buried.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's one thing to say the early Christians misinterpreted the gospels and epistles, but Baha'is have said that the gospels have been written by second or third hand witnesses and the writers have added embellishments. The insinuation is they are not accurate.

We have posted qotes on that subject and you know we see the Bible as accurate Spiritual Guidance. Baha'u'llah said it would not be Justice if it was not, and God is Justice.

The Bible contains the Word of God that will guide us unto all Truth, that is if we do not put mens learning above Spiritual Truths.

Christ warned about adding our own words.

When it comes to the resurrection, the gospels present it as a real event. The early Christians taught it was a real event. So, if the Baha'is are correct, the writers and the early Christians both were

In the Kitab-i-Iqan Baha’u’llah’s Book of Certitude, He writes:

"The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit. This is evidenced by those who, today, though without a single letter of the accepted standards of learning, are occupying the loftiest seats of knowledge; and the garden of their hearts is adorned, through the showers of divine grace, with the roses of wisdom and the tulips of understanding. Well is it with the sincere in heart for their share of the light of a mighty Day!"

So, if Baha'is are right, the New Testament itself is a misinterpretation of what Jesus really said and did. The worst being the phony belief that he came back to life. The Baha'i truth is that Jesus is dead and buried

It is a Spiritual Record that prepares us for the Day of God, this day we live in.

The keys to the understanding of past scriptures have been given.

You must look in your heart as we have had to look into our own.

From there it is your journey.

All the best CG, the world of today has made this a difficult and complicated journey. If you find Baha'u'llah, it has just started, never think it will all be solved on acceptance. One must always work to make and keep the heart Pure. We easily reject this Purity and Kindness of heart.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe the resurrection is evident because the Bible says it is.

Of course. There is absolutely no evidence for a literal resurrection outside the bible. That's why I started this thread in the scripture section of the forum debates.

There is Biblical evidence that the religious leaders lied in saying that the body of Jesus was stolen. It is easy to believe they lied because they opposed Jesus and wanted Him dead.

In reference to Matthew 28:12-14, the author (unknown) was familiar with counter claims to the resurrection narrative. I would presume that the religious leaders made the reasonable assumption something happened to the body of Christ other than being resurrected. The most likely explanation was that some of the early Christians had taken the body.

What exactly happened to the body is a moot point. An empty tomb, if it existed at all, was no proof of a resurrection.

I believe it brings assurance of an after life. It also means that the Spirit of God that is in Jesus will be in the Christian as well.

Agreed.

I believe there is not an iota of a suggestion in the Bible that it is an allegory.

The responsibiliy to prove the resurrection rests with the Christians that hold this belief. Dead men don't rise from the dead and they certainly don't ascend through the stratosphere. There's nothing from our knowledge of the phenomenal world to suggest that heaven and hell are literally located in the sky or below the earth.The balance of probabilities rests overwhelming with those who reject a literal resurrection.

I believe we do not know what Paul saw before he was blinded but it is not inconceivable that he saw the risen Christ as he states.

Paul arguably wrote 13 or 14 out of the 27 books in the NT. At no point in his works does he clearly describe an encounter with a literally resurrected Christ.

I believe that is illogical and does not follow from the premise. Paul does not say he saw Jesus within the forty days but says he saw him out of due time. It is not inconceivable that Jesus returned for this very special task.

In which case it is not inconceivable that He could appear to any of us on this forum at any time. Of course many of us have had an encounter with the resurrected Jesus and that's why we believe in Him. However the Jesus whom we have encountered is no longer in the flesh, as flesh can not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 15:50)

I believe Paul has not reported this as a mystical experience or an allegory.

I believe he does.

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
2 Corinthians 12:1-4

 

[Dawnofhope]

If I provide evidence, based on the bible, as a proof of my claim then you should provide a counter evidence that my claim is not valid. Since you’re the one challenging my claim then it becomes your responsibility to provide counter-evidence otherwise you’re just making an assumption that my claim is not valid.

Dead men don't walk and talk and they certainly don't rise through the stratopshere to where the spiritual heaven spoken of in the bible is unlikely to be. Other than what we have in the bible, history in the first centry is completely silent about such a phenomena. Many Christians claim Jesus literally rose from the dead an ascended to heaven (the sky). This is contrary to reason and science.

I have no problem if Christians want to believe it. Its when they insist it to be fact and an irrefutable truth of the supremacy of Christianity over other religions, that prompts me to start threads like this one.

So I don't need to disprove the literal resurrection, as it is self evident that He didn't. If some Christians want to claim a literal resurrection as fact, they need to provide proof.

The word we are looking for, again, is, “MANIFESTED [G5746]” and as I have explained before this word means to make visible. A good example is, as you read these WORDS your eyes are actually witnessing it for the VERY first time, right? One cannot say that it was a different person, other than you, three years from now, who actually saw these words first. So, if you would write something about this event, you would write it on how you have seen it or how it was “MANIFESTED” right in front of you by using the pronoun “Me, Myself, and I”. Now, if someone is writing, other than you, one cannot use the pronoun “Me, Myself, and I” because they were not the first one who actually saw it or witnessed it, instead one should use the pronoun "he saw or she saw", right? And then you would argue, it's hearsay, right?

Let’s say a 2nd or 3rd generation wrote the epistle, do you think they would use the pronoun “we/us” if they have NOT actually seen, with their eyes, the Lord Jesus, instead of the pronoun “they” who actually have seen, with their eyes, the Lord Jesus? Again, you would argue, it's hearsay.

However, if the body of Christ is the community of faithful believers or the Church, then we have all witnessed the rise of the body of Christ with our own eyes.

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'