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

[Trailblazer]

Let's pretend that you and the Baha'is are right, did the gospel writers know that Jesus did not literally come back to life?

There is really no way to know if they knew or not, but that does not matter now. He either did or He didn’t and people are free to believe as they wish since there is no proof; all we have are stories.

And about being able to read, this is how Revelation ends...

Revelation 22:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.
​

So who said "Yes, I am coming soon"? If not Jesus, then whoever this John is that got this revelation has got it wrong. He says, "Come, Lord Jesus"? So is John right, and it is Jesus coming back? Or is he wrong and misunderstood or assumed it was going to be Jesus?

Certainly Jesus did not write it because it says “Come, Lord Jesus.” Whoever wrote it is referring to what Jesus said elsewhere but did not understand what Jesus meant. Jesus said He was sending His Spirit again, not that He was returning in the same body.

 

[Trailblazer]

Who wrote the books in the New Testament, God or men?

Men wrote those books, but they were purportedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, whatever that means.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

They seem to have completely believed in a physical resurrection from the dead, a virgin birth, a literal ascension of Christ to heaven...etc. etc. I think that probably qualifies as deluded...but at least they were consistently (and I'm guessing not wilfully) deluded!

The belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus appears to have been part of Christianity from early on. The empty tomb narrative at the end of the Gospel of Mark could very possibly be an account of a real event and the origin of the idea. The Gospel writers would naturally include this because it was deeply embedded in the belief system well before they wrote. Keep in mind that this was [B}not[/B} supposed to be a normal state of affairs. It is exactly because it is physically impossible for a genuinely dead body to get up again that it was so important. It was a miracle performed by God reinforcing the promise of a general resurrection and judgment in the future.

Mark wrote his Gospel because the belief in the return of Jesus while at least some of Paul’s readers were still alive was in danger of expiring. Mark looked to regenerate that faith by having the destruction of the Temple be the sign of the beginning of the end, with Jesus coming back not long after.

Matthew wrote his Gospel to strongly reinforce belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Toward this end he employed a plethora of OT references to connect with Jesus. The virgin birth story that he introduced was part of reconciling Jesus as being of the House of David, necessary to be the Messiah, and being literally the Son of God, as established as far back as Paul.

Luke wrote his Gospel to portray Jesus and Christianity as applicable to Gentiles. With his concentration on the Messiah theme, Matthew had perhaps overemphasized the Jewish roots. As he often does with themes in Matthew, Luke adapts the virgin birth story to suit his purposes.

John wrote his Gospel to present a well-developed Christology. John wrote well after Mark. The end time thinking that appears in Mark, and given lip service at least in Matthew and Luke, was no longer a big issue due to the passage of time and John almost entirely ignores it.

Much of the above ideas about the Gospels can be found in From Jesus to Christianity by L. Michael White.

The literal ascension into the clouds (nobody actually says heaven) appears only in Acts (authored by Luke). As I have argued earlier, this may be no more than a literary device to link back to the apocalyptic sounding Oliver Discourse, which in turn connects to Daniel, and is so doing switch attention away from an apocalypse to the ongoing mission of the church in the mundane world.

I do not see the Gospel writers as deluded, unless one wishes to assert that all religion is necessarily delusional. In that case why single out the Gospel writers? From what I can see, the writers of the Gospels were skilled story tellers using what had been given to them, presenting their individual contributions to the whole for their own individual reasons.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Wait a minute, so "confessed...upheld and defended" translates as "can't say whether it happened or not"? You can categorically deny the resurrection (which might just have been a case of a mistaken pronouncement of death - it happens) - and on the grounds of science (as you claimed earlier) - but you "can't say" whether the virgin birth (let alone an eternally immaculate virgin) really happened or not?

Off topic? I think that objection should definitely be overruled - this testimony speaks directly to the competence (or otherwise) of the witness your Honor!

OK, lets overrule the objection and make it admissible.

The OP is written by a Baha'i, and if I reject the resurrection on the grounds of scientific evidence and reason, then it appears contradictory and inconsistent to not reject the virgin birth on the same grounds. It would be unfair, or at least give the appearance of undue bias, if I were to deny you the opportunity to least discuss it.

The Baha'is believe in the same God as the Christians and that God is Omnipotent and All-Powerful. So God can do anything that God wants to do. He could appear to you right know in overwhelming Glory and Power. You would be so overwhelmed and you would have no choice to acknowledge His existence. The problem is that God would be removing your free will and also depriving you of the opportunity to recognise Him without recourse to such a miraculous event. However Christians and Baha'is believe that it is within His power to reveal Himself to you in such a manner, that you would have no choice.

Baha'is like Christians, Believe that Christ had the power to perform all the miracles. That could involve healing. He has the power over life so He had the power to come back from the dead. He had the power to bring another back to life. God Himself has the power to bring life into the world through a virgin birth if He decided. Just because God and/or His Manifestation (or Son) could perform such miracles doesn't mean they did.

So in that case why not create the world in six days? Why not assist Noah to build an Ark and bring all the living beings together? Why not bring Jesus back from the dead.

Just because God could perform a miracle and it appears He may of because of an (allegorical) story in the bible does not mean that He has done so.

The problem with the creation myth is there's overwhelming evidence that the earth is not young. The problem with Noah's story is there is no evidence of a world wide flood to that extent at that time and it would be impossible to gather together and store all the animals of the earth together in an Ark of the dimensions provided for the length of the flood. The problem with the resurrection is the ascension that relies on a cosmological view of the world that has been disproven.

With the virgin birth we simply can not disprove it in the same manner as creation, the story of Noah, or the Ascension. We don't know for certain, because God is All Power and Omnipotent. Likewise we can not rule many of the other miracles in or out but they are only proofs to those who witness them.

 

[Trailblazer]

...the scripture prove that Baha'u'llah is the promised Messiah...the scriptures are mistaken...but infallibly indicated the year of Baha'u'llah's appearance...the scriptures are ancient and irrelevant to our times...but ALL the prophecies in them refer specifically to our time...

Please do not twist what I said and cherry pick and thereby misrepresent what I said.

What I said needs to be understood in the context of what I said. Regarding the Bible, I said:

• I rely more on logic and reason than ancient scriptures that have too many problems to even be listed.
• However, the Bible proves who Baha’u’llah was if interpreted correctly.
  
• The Bible is a Pandora’s Box of contradictions and nobody can possibly know what meanings to ascribe to so many of the verses...

I never said that the scriptures are mistaken or that they infallibly indicated the year of Baha'u'llah's appearance. I said that they have many problems, but I did not say that the prophecies had problems.

The prophecies in the Bible are accurate and useful to the degree that we can understand what they mean. If they weren’t accurate, how could God expect people to recognize the return of Christ/Messiah when He came?

Trailblazer said: Everyone knows that there is something wrong with those verses.
Situ said: Yes - they don't fit in with a Baha'i interpretation - obviously they are wrong.

They do not fit in with what Christians believe either, that Jesus would come before the disciples died, so this is not a Baha’i thing.

you still don't see any problem with your logic or reason?

No, there is nothing wrong with my logic and reason. I said the scriptures have many problems. I said I do not rely upon the Bible to determine who Baha’u’llah was but it does prove who Baha’u’llah was.

I did not say the Bible is all wrong. Besides that fact, you completely omitted what I said about how I applied my logic and reason to determine who Baha’u’llah was, which had nothing to do with the Bible. You cherry picked my post.

Why not just respond to what I actually said instead of cherry picking to prove your point?

 

[Trailblazer]

As a literal historic account, No.

As a spiritual testimony to the Life and Teachings of Christ, yes. Baha'is see the gospels as reliable in this respect in contrast to the Muslims.

Thanks. I know what Baha'is believe but I did not know that about Muslims.

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The interpretation of biblical prophecies has long been the subject of controversy and speculation among religious scholars. As Bahá'ís, we know that we must turn to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi for authoritative guidance in these matters. When a subject has not been mentioned or explained in the Sacred Writings, we are free to consult other books and to consider the opinions of scholars if we wish to do so.

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

 

[siti]

I do not see the Gospel writers as deluded, unless one wishes to assert that all religion is necessarily delusional. In that case why single out the Gospel writers?

I didn't single out the Gospel writers, the topic of the thread did. I strongly suspect that all religion is, in some degree, delusional - that's not the problem - the problem is that we (a) despise the "delusional" aspects of the human experience so much that we refuse to admit that they are an essential part of human life and then (b) insist that the experiences that are derived from the fanciful flights of human imagination must convey some more profound and ultimate truths about the world that must have originated from a supernatural divine source.

From what I can see, the writers of the Gospels were skilled story tellers using what had been given to them, presenting their individual contributions to the whole for their own individual reasons.

Right! But don't you agree that to suggest that what they really had in mind was to produce a symbolic representation of events that would take place at a specific time many centuries after they wrote is an enormous stretch of the imagination that is in no way borne out by a consideration of the text, context or history of the time in which they were written?

 

[CG Didymus]

Off topic, but a good question:

"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá'u'lláh as the 'Spirit of God,' is proclaimed as the One Who 'appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,' and is even extolled as the Essence of the Spirit. His mother is described as 'that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous countenance,' and the station of her Son eulogized as a 'station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth', whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused 'the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth'...."
(Shoghi Effendi: The Promised Day is Come, pp. 109-110)

Baha'is consider the virgin birth a Divine mystery that is upheld and leave it at that.

It's just as "unscientific" as the resurrection. That's how it's relevant.

 

[siti]

The prophecies in the Bible are accurate and useful to the degree that we can understand what they mean. If they weren’t accurate, how could God expect people to recognize the return of Christ/Messiah when He came?

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? I wonder if this might be why there have been hundreds of apparently mistaken recognitions of the return of the Messiah starting from just a few days after he died and continuing right up to the 21st century.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's just as "unscientific" as the resurrection. That's how it's relevant.

Thank you. I hope I have addressed the apparent inconsistency that Baha'is have in regards to the virgin birth and resurrection in post #584

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you think the gospel writers were deluded in the sense of having a major mental illness, or perhaps they were simply mistaken?

You have said there's embellishments. If men have added to the gospels, then they are not God's word. Which is it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks. I know what Baha'is believe but I did not know that about Muslims.

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The interpretation of biblical prophecies has long been the subject of controversy and speculation among religious scholars. As Bahá'ís, we know that we must turn to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi for authoritative guidance in these matters. When a subject has not been mentioned or explained in the Sacred Writings, we are free to consult other books and to consider the opinions of scholars if we wish to do so.

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

Thank you for quoting those letters Susan.

Here is what Baha'u'llah said about the gospels ijn the Kitab-I-Iqan:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

 

[Dawnofhope]

You have said there's embellishments. If men have added to the gospels, then they are not God's word. Which is it?

Both. The excerpts Susan has provided from the letters of the Universal House of Justice (post #586) clarify this further and hopefully answer your question.

 

[siti]

The problem with the creation myth is there's overwhelming evidence that the earth is not young.

The problem with Noah's story is there is no evidence of a world wide flood to that extent at that time and it would be impossible to gather together and store all the animals of the earth together in an Ark of the dimensions provided for the length of the flood.

The problem with the resurrection is the ascension that relies on a cosmological view of the world that has been disproven.

With the virgin birth we simply can not disprove it in the same manner as creation, the story of Noah, or the Ascension. We don't know for certain, because God is All Power and Omnipotent.

And the problem with this line of reasoning is that you have permitted God to overrule nature in one case but not the others.

Of course we know for certain that Mary was not only not a virgin when she conceived Jesus...

...but neither was she herself maintained "immaculate" from the moment of her own conception in the womb of her mother (which is what the Church doctrine of the 'immaculate conception' is really about).

But theologically, it is absolutely confused to reject the notion of "original sin" as I believe Baha'i doctrine does, and uphold the doctrine of the immaculate conception the whole point of which is to claim that Mary was, by the grace of God, "preserved free of the stain of original sin".

The theological reasoning here (in the Shogi Effendi quote you posted earlier) is really confused - quite apart from the logical and scientific absurdity of the argument.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's just as "unscientific" as the resurrection. That's how it's relevant.

No, not quite, not unless there are ANY instances of people who have been dead for three days and then brought back to life.

Virgin births claimed by 1 percent of U.S. moms: Study

The Science Behind the Virgin Birth

 

[CG Didymus]

I thought you would be all over that one like a rash.

It is off topic as you know.

Read the text though. The Baha'is can't cay whether it happened or not.

What would be so hard to say it was symbolic? It must be, ' cause it ain't scientific.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thank you for quoting those letters Susan.

Here is what Baha'u'llah said about the gospels ijn the Kitab-I-Iqan:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

Thanks, I know that quote well. I was going to post it to our friend, but I changed my mind since I did not want to give him any more rope to hang me.

 

[CG Didymus]

Men wrote those books, but they were purportedly inspired by the Holy Spirit, whatever that means.

Exactly, men wrote them and men made them the inspired word of God and men have declared them the literal, infallible and inerrant word of God. Obviously, they were deluded... And that should include the words in the New Testament. Those are words of men. So why do Baha'i prophets say it is the word of God as if Jesus wrote it or something?

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly, men wrote them and men made them the inspired word of God and men have declared them the literal, infallible and inerrant word of God. Obviously, they were deluded... And that should include the words in the New Testament. Those are words of men. So why do Baha'i prophets say it is the word of God as if Jesus wrote it or something?

That is not what we believe. The quotes below represent the Baha'i position on the Bible.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

The interpretation of biblical prophecies has long been the subject of controversy and speculation among religious scholars. As Bahá'ís, we know that we must turn to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi for authoritative guidance in these matters. When a subject has not been mentioned or explained in the Sacred Writings, we are free to consult other books and to consider the opinions of scholars if we wish to do so.

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

 

[CG Didymus]

No, not quite, not unless there are ANY instances of people who have been dead for three days and then brought back to life.

Virgin births claimed by 1 percent of U.S. moms: Study

The Science Behind the Virgin Birth

It amazes me how Baha'is always find a way to support their beliefs. What do you got on walking on water? A load of #<*£ right?