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

[Dawnofhope]

Scientist say the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, right? Where do we find argon? Earth atmosphere, right?

Since argon is found in the earth atmosphere and the assumption that the earth is 4.5 billion years old therefore the argon should be the same, i.e., 4.5 billion years old, right?

In theory, you could see potassium decaying into argon.

If you test an igneous rock with potassium/argon dating method and if it senses potassium decaying into argon then they would assume this rock to be about millions, if not billions, of years old and this is how they dated fossils or even that questionable T-rex with soft tissues. They did NOT test the tissues with C14 but tested the igneous rocks where there is potassium decaying into argon and that’s how they date the strata below and above and that’s how they date the fossils with their millions of years.

There are a number of radioisotopes. Carbon dating alone is enough for me to know the earth is older than six thousand years let alone all those isotopes with much longer half lives.

We're agreed that carbon dating like any tool has it's limitations. It's true that argon/potassium dating enables us to calculate the age indirectly by analysing rock specimens in strata above and below the fossils.

I suppose as you see irrefutable proof of the resurrection of Christ in the bible, I see irrefutable proof that the earth is old in the study of the natural sciences.

I see little to be gained by denying science. If it weren't for science we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

[Neb]

I don't know if you were reading the other Baha'i thread on the "Great Beings", but in it they said that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed. One of the Baha'is said that Isaac got switched and was probably a scribal error.

They could tell that to the Jews and see how they react. They don’t have a problem with Ishmael, who came from Abraham, but they knew "For in Isaac shall thy seed be called" and NOT through Ishmael and Esau “sold his birthright unto Jacob” for a “pottage of lentils”- Genesis 25:34, this I believe because it’s written in the bible. They want to re-write the Old Testament and the New Testament to fit their doctrine.

 

[Neb]

I've missed a few pages. How old do the Old Earthers say the soft tissue was? A few million?

They are still "ON HOLD" on this issue or really confused about it. Soft tissue and still stretchy with protein in it after 65 million years? They hit a wall on this one.

 

[metis]

Wait a minute, are we still debating about C14 dating method? So, why is it that I need to know your educational background and your personal life, when all you have to do is simply prove that my statements were wrong and I believed you could do that easily, with no problem at all, because you are a scientist, a retired anthropologist.
With your extensive educational background, you don’t need to persuade readers with rhetoric just to debate someone like me who “do not have any clue how actual science works” or “simply do not know what” I’m “talking about”. Name-calling? Really? Grow up, man.

When one lies by fabricating stories and then calls someone "naive", what do you expect, a gold star for your forehead?

I gave my background to show you that I went through much the same as you have, so instead of just listening to the pastor and his nonsense that I was taught at my church, I actually did the research and found that I was being led astray.

So, it was you who invented lies by stereotyping scientists and it was you who made an insulting remark on my character. So, if this is what your church teaches you as being right and proper, then maybe seek out a church that actually teaches love, compassion, understanding, and fairness because it appears that the one you're going to is pointing you in the opposite direction.

We're done, so post what you want as I couldn't care less, plus I'd much would rather have serious discussion with those who don't act like you do. You tell me to "grow up, man", and say that I used "name-calling", which is just another lie of yours since I did no such thing. Maybe just stop and think what you've been doing here on this, and then maybe check this sound piece of advice:
Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

 

[Neb]

When one lies by fabricating stories and then calls someone "naive", what do you expect, a gold star for your forehead?

I'm the one fabricating? What do you call a 65 million years old dinosaur with soft tissue with protein?

I gave my background to show you that I went through much the same as you have, so instead of just listening to the pastor and his nonsense that I was taught at my church, I actually did the research and found that I was being led astray.

So, it was you who invented lies by stereotyping scientists and it was you who made an insulting remark on my character. So, if this is what your church teaches you as being right and proper, then maybe seek out a church that actually teaches love, compassion, understanding, and fairness because it appears that the one you're going to is pointing you in the opposite direction.

Persuading readers with rhetoric is a sign of weakness. You may find it effective if readers in this thread do not value facts but rather on emotion and if you need sympathy I, for one, would rather argue with facts than play with your pathetic or heartbreaking story. Do not mix facts with emotions.

 

[Neb]

This passage clearly states that Baha’u’llah descended from Abraham via another son than Ishmael or Isaac. Since Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham’s only children by Hagar and Sarah, this leaves Keturah, the third wife of Abraham, as the mother of his other sons, as can be seen on this genealogy chart: Genealogy of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh

“As you may know, Abraham had three wives: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.
It's my understanding that Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah, and that the line from Sarah included David as well (though I don't know at what point before Jesus it then split off).

"Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah"?

 

[Neb]

So anyway, the short answer is that yes, Baha'u'llah was a descendant of David.”

Is Baha'u'llah related to King David? | Interfaith forums

Mt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
Mt 1:3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
Mt 1:4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
Mt 1:5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Mt 1:6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
Mt 1:7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
Mt 1:8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
Mt 1:9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
Mt 1:10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
Mt 1:11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
Mt 1:12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
Mt 1:13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
Mt 1:14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Mt 1:15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Mt 1:16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Did you see Baha'u'llah's name here? NO? Then Baha'u'llah was NOT a descendant of David, right?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Now, after your long post, much of which is shown to be a an account of theological fable by, say, Matthew, I need to explain to you yet again that I have absolutely no interest in any writings which are metaphorical, fable, myth, theological ideas etc.

I am only interested in who and what Yeshua BarYosef was, how he got involved in the Baptist's mission and how he carried it forward, probably over nearly one year.

What happened after that is beyond my remit. And so the foundations of my studies are based upon early first century Galilee, what the Galilean people were like, how did they react with other Jews and provinces, how honest were they, what they believed in, how they survived, where they built houses and where they lived in tents, how did they make their clothes, what did their children do and how did they grow up etc. And the available history about all this show a much different picture to the Christian ideas.
And so I rip out the theological slants and agendas from the gospels, seeking out real people with real characters (if possible). These people were like folks anywhere, some were canny survivors, many, if they needed to were fibbers, just as we can find today. Many would have done anything to avoid paying taxes or whatever, some would steal if given the opportunity, they were just folks............. they were human.

And in the situation of these people trekking along the Jordan (avoiding Samaria) to spend their hard earned money at Jerusalem, getting ripped off by the locals and then losing the rest at the Temple, the presence of a Holy man with a great reputation offering redemption, cleansing and feel-good-factor for very little would have been a great temptation. The Baptists disciples would have been working all day long, and since they probably received small gratuities for their services I can imagine why they were attracted to the operation.

It's all about the human factor, added to what is written, and although it's a guesstimate it produces a quite different scenario to crowds of holy, moral, honest, well behaved folks doing exactly what they are told to do. They were human.

Inject humanity into the Gospels and you get a much different, but very interesting balance of possibility. Theological myths don't help me with historical Jesus.

What I was getting at by my analysis is that it appears that Jesus did NOT say “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”, as you thought. That was an addition by Matthew and therefore, as you put it, ‘fable’. BTW the only way we ‘know’ (if indeed we do) that the (adoptive?) father of Jesus was named Joseph is by Mathew’s first chapter, not the most realistic sounding scenario.

Simply throwing out everything mythical, supernatural etc. and accepting the rest as fact is not the way to truth. It is necessary to understand why a writer wrote what he did before one can distinguish possible fact from probable fiction.

OTOH don’t sell mythology short. It is a way of expressing a worldview embodying the values of a culture. Babylonian mythology is about assigning supernatural authority to the state. Greek mythology is about human concerns and right behavior. The worth of a mythology is what good it can do and that does not depend on what did or did not happen historically.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

No, I did not.
You must stop divining up stuff that I said.
The KP and KAP that I referred to are centre-right (of the raptor) in coins which I referred to and not on the circumference.

And if you can show where I wrote kappa alpha or rho I will chew on my laptop.

The lettering on the coins is Greek. What looks like KP on the coins is not the English letters K and P. They are the Greek letters Kappa (= English K) and Rho (= English R). Likewise the Greek A is Alpha, which is the equivalent of the English A..

Would you like some A-1 sauce on your laptop?

 

[Neb]

We're done, so post what you want as I couldn't care less, plus I'd much would rather have serious discussion with those who don't act like you do. You tell me to "grow up, man", and say that I used "name-calling", which is just another lie of yours since I did no such thing. Maybe just stop and think what you've been doing here on this, and then maybe check this sound piece of advice:

Micah 6:8 He has showed you, O man, what is good;

and what does the LORD require of you

but to do justice, and to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with your God?

I see you are leaning on ecumenism and unaffiliated to whatever but attend wife's Catholic church. IOW, you are still confused.

In Chapter 1:1-3 of the Book of Micah it says:

Verse 1: “The word of Jehovah that came to Micah the Morashtite in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.”

Verse 2: “Hear, ye peoples, all of you: hearken, O earth, and all that therein is: and let the Lord Jehovah be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple.”

Verse 3: “For, behold, Jehovah cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.”

What are these “high places of the earth”?

These are pagan’s religious sanctuaries during that time.

What is ecumenism?

These are the “high places” in our time.

“He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” -Micah 6:8

“What does the Lord require of you”? Ecumenism? Or “Walk humbly with your God”?

 

[Neb]

There are a number of radioisotopes. Carbon dating alone is enough for me to know the earth is older than six thousand years let alone all those isotopes with much longer half lives.

We're agreed that carbon dating like any tool has it's limitations. It's true that argon/potassium dating enables us to calculate the age indirectly by analysing rock specimens in strata above and below the fossils.

I suppose as you see irrefutable proof of the resurrection of Christ in the bible, I see irrefutable proof that the earth is old in the study of the natural sciences.

I see little to be gained by denying science. If it weren't for science we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

How did scientists get the age of argon?

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Your evidence for Christ being literally resurrected is based on literal interpretation of NT books that are nearly two thousand years old. Some of the authors are unknown, particularly the gospels. The early church ascribed names to the gospels but modern bible scholarship provides compelling evidence that none of the authors of the synoptic were eye witnesses to the events they rose, and that the author of John, probably wasn't the apostle John. You believe differently and that is fine, but there is strong evidence in my favour. Regardless, my views on the resurrection advocate for their profound spiritual (not literal) significance and do not depend on who the authors really were."​

What is the New Testament? Baha'is post quotes from the Baha'i Writings saying how great the Christian Bible is, but so many times you say that they were the writings of people that weren't eye witnesses and not even the people that have their names attached to the writings. So were they ordinary men that were taught about Jesus by others? Others that may or may not have been Apostles? Writers that had an agenda to convince people that Jesus was a great spiritual person and was the Jewish Messiah? Writers that said Mary and others saw the tomb empty? Said that Jesus had risen from the dead? Said that Jesus spoke, ate and was touched by people? Then, in front of people ascended into the clouds? So was their agenda to make such a convincing story about how supernatural Jesus was, that people would give their lives to follow the teachings of Jesus? But those same writers had an agenda on writing down the supposed things Jesus said?

But, the Baha'is believe Jesus died and was buried? That those writers, all four of them, reported a story that the tomb was empty, that Jesus had come back to life. But, Baha's believe that story was only symbolic? Why would those non-eye witness writers do that? Why would these non-eye witness, therefore not being any of the Apostles or their immediate disciples, be truly "inspired" by God? Why didn't the real Apostles write anything? Why make up a symbolic story of the resurrection? How would nobody, especially the Jews and the Romans, not know that Jesus was dead and buried? How could the early Church come to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead?

So a person that comes to believe in Jesus, and is taught about the things in the New Testament and Jewish Bible, comes to believe that everything in Genesis is real, creation, Adam and Eve, the Fall, the Flood etc. Because of Adam's rebellion, all humanity is born with a sin nature. In the spirit world an Adversary roams around trying to deceive people. This Adversary rebelled against God, but in the end times will be cast into a lake of fire. To get right with God, people must accept Jesus and obey his teachings. Those that reject Jesus will be judged by God and cast into hell. All this is supposedly taken from the New Testament and the Jewish Scripture. Baha'is say none of this is true. So the resurrection is only one thing about Christian beliefs that Baha'is say isn't true. Most all of the major Christian beliefs are rejected by Baha'is. Yet, Baha'is say how great and wonderful the New Testament and Jesus are? Why? What's left?

You are playing the devil's advocate (figure of speech, not literal). You believe in neither the view of the Baha'is, nor the evangelical Christians, yet use the Christian arguments against the Baha'is. Wouldn't it be a more meaningful conversation to argue from your perspective? Who are you and what do you believe? Do you not see the gospels as fabrications of fallible men in the absence of a God that for you probably doesn't exist? There is no contradiction but you need that contradiction to exist to legitimise your agnosticism.

In regards creation and genesis the Baha'is are not saying anything new. Science is on our side. In regards the symbolism and allegory within the sacred texts, modern scholarship largely supports the Baha'i view.

The issues at hand go way beyond either the Evangelical Christians or Baha'is.

 

[oldbadger]

John made things up just like Matthew and Luke did.

Whilst we know that G-John's timeline was a fabrication, together with many of his miracles etc, it does look as if some of his anecdotes could be real, because they are either not necessary for the christian message, or sidelines, or innocuous, or agenda free. Especially where they don't particularly help the Christian message.

 

[oldbadger]

What I was getting at by my analysis is that it appears that Jesus did NOT say “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”, as you thought. That was an addition by Matthew and therefore, as you put it, ‘fable’. BTW the only way we ‘know’ (if indeed we do) that the (adoptive?) father of Jesus was named Joseph is by Mathew’s first chapter, not the most realistic sounding scenario.

Simply throwing out everything mythical, supernatural etc. and accepting the rest as fact is not the way to truth. It is necessary to understand why a writer wrote what he did before one can distinguish possible fact from probable fiction.

OTOH don’t sell mythology short. It is a way of expressing a worldview embodying the values of a culture. Babylonian mythology is about assigning supernatural authority to the state. Greek mythology is about human concerns and right behavior. The worth of a mythology is what good it can do and that does not depend on what did or did not happen historically.

I think that you've got lost in the complexity and sophistication of your searches.

'Mercy before sacrifice' fits neatly with baptism, with the Temple demonstration and picketing, with the whole mission, to bring the old laws back for the benefit of the working people, the vast mass of the Israel population.

 

[oldbadger]

The lettering on the coins is Greek. What looks like KP on the coins is not the English letters K and P. They are the Greek letters Kappa (= English K) and Rho (= English R). Likewise the Greek A is Alpha, which is the equivalent of the English A..

Would you like some A-1 sauce on your laptop?

Just a second.....
You've got this wrong. The letters were not struck in connection with Greek culture, but with Roman culture, and the Romans would merrily foreshorten words as necessary. The abbreviated KP or KAP stood for Καῖσαρ the Roman choice of name for Caesar, which was then used by those Caesars that followed.

And since the image of Baal, together with the graven image of raptor perched on boat's bows were both clearly intended to show total empowerment of all of Israel's provinces, I rather think that KAP was intended exactly as a foreshortened Caesar.

Strong's Greek: 2541. Καῖσαρ (Kaisar) -- Caesar, a Roman emperor
biblehub.com/greek/2541.htm
STRONGS NT 2541: Καῖσαρ Καῖσαρ, Καίσαρος (Alexander Buttmann (1873) 16 (15)), ὁ, Caesar (properly, the surname of Julius Caesar, which being adopted by Octavianus Augustus and his successors afterward became an appellative, and was appropriated by the Roman emperors as a part of their title (cf. Dict. of ...
Images for caesa

 

[Dawnofhope]

How did scientists get the age of argon?

Do you mean estimating the half life of argon or when argon came into existence?

 

[Trailblazer]

"Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah"?

Yes, it split off. Look at the diagonal line on the genealogy chart:
Genealogy of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Just a second.....
You've got this wrong. The letters were not struck in connection with Greek culture, but with Roman culture, and the Romans would merrily foreshorten words as necessary. The abbreviated KP or KAP stood for Καῖσαρ the Roman choice of name for Caesar, which was then used by those Caesars that followed.

And since the image of Baal, together with the graven image of raptor perched on boat's bows were both clearly intended to show total empowerment of all of Israel's provinces, I rather think that KAP was intended exactly as a foreshortened Caesar.

Strong's Greek: 2541. Καῖσαρ (Kaisar) -- Caesar, a Roman emperor
biblehub.com/greek/2541.htm
STRONGS NT 2541: Καῖσαρ Καῖσαρ, Καίσαρος (Alexander Buttmann (1873) 16 (15)), ὁ, Caesar (properly, the surname of Julius Caesar, which being adopted by Octavianus Augustus and his successors afterward became an appellative, and was appropriated by the Roman emperors as a part of their title (cf. Dict. of ...
Images for caesa

Why would they use upper case Alpha and Rho in a contraction, instead of the lower case letters as in the actual word?

BTW do you have a source for this? If you came up with it yourself it is quite creative. Especially since until recently you did not even know they were Greek letters.

Of course, it does not change my previous criticism that the Aramaic speaking and mostly illiterate population at large would have no concept of what it was supposed to mean and therefore not be upset about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Mt 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;
Mt 1:3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;
Mt 1:4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;
Mt 1:5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Mt 1:6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah;
Mt 1:7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;
Mt 1:8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;
Mt 1:9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;
Mt 1:10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;
Mt 1:11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.
Mt 1:12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;
Mt 1:13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
Mt 1:14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Mt 1:15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Mt 1:16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Did you see Baha'u'llah's name here? NO? Then Baha'u'llah was NOT a descendant of David, right?

Everything is not in the Bible but just because it is not in the Bible does not mean it is not true.

Take a look at this genealogy chart: The Divine Standard Unfurled : Genealogy of Baha'u'llah

I did not want to post it before because it is not from an official Baha’i website, but it is the most detailed genealogy chart I know of. The squabbles between the real Baha’is and the Covenant-breakers do not really matter... They got the genealogy which leads to Baha’u’llah...That is what matters....

 

[HeatherAnn]

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

It gives hope to overcome the greatest human fear: death.
I personally, believe in consciousness (energy) after death, but in a different form obviously. And considering that it's been said that the story of the resurrection was added about 400 years after Jesus lived, I take the resurrection idea as a spiritual parable, not literally. And if you consider it that way, it is fundamental to what Christ taught - to be born again spiritually - but not just once, but over and over throughout your life - as you confront shadow aspects, let go of what dies and allow what springs out of that to be born. You could consider it like positive disintegration.