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

[Neb]

Baha’is have no doctrines.

What do you teach your people if you don’t have a doctrine? Freestyling? A pinch of Christianism, a pinch of Buddhism, Taoism, Mysticism and as you move along you pick other beliefs and pattern it with Baha’u’llah’s writings and voila! a new revelation from Baha’u’llah and this is what we mean by “Progressive Revelation”.

 

[Neb]

It is the Christians who adulterate the Bible to fit their doctrines.

One of the reasons why a lot of people are still confused about the true meaning of Christianity is because some professed Christians still adhere to idols and statues, some to the Law of Moses [tithings and the Sabbath], some to mysticism, and some to all kinds of other religions mix into one. These are the semi-hybrid Christians and by their teachings or “DOCTRINES” one who truly adheres to the Bible should be able to recognize them just like how I recognized your twisted, adulterated “DOCTRINES”.

All we do is explain what the Bible means according to our own beliefs.

Do you really think you could just pick up verses in the bible and mix it with your twisted, adulterated doctrines and hoping that no one will notice it, or even question it, and with these mixed doctrines you think you could CHALLENGE the Literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus? Do you really think that you can get away with it without anyone challenging you?

 

[Neb]

Christians do not OWN the Bible.

”OWN”? What like a property? God is the owner of the Bible and we Christians just follow them. Do you own your boss’ property or follow what your boss is telling you?

Funny thing, it is fine when scholars or anyone else explains what the Bible means, but it is not okay for Baha’is to have their own opinions.

Interpretation should be within context and not out of context. Your interpretation of the bible is not just out of context or all the way out in the left field but actually out of the park.

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).

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

”Baha’u’llah was a descendant of David” NOT IN BIBLE.

 

[Neb]

This vendetta that Christians have against the Baha’is is all about the fact that we claim that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and they think we have usurped Jesus from His throne, but we cannot do that unless Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be so what’s the big deal?

”VENDETTA”? Your OP is challenging the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, remember?

Phil 2:9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
Phil 2:10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
Phil 2:11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

There is NO OTHER NAME but the NAME OF JESUS only. NOT BAHA’U’LLAH or his son. There is no room for Baha'u'llah here. You know why?

Phil 2:5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phil 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phil 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
Phil 2:8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.

Baha’u’llah did not die on any cross. Baha’u’llah did not resurrect. Baha’u’llah did not ascend into the heaven and seating, as we speak, at the right hand of God. NO! None of these took place with your imaginary god.

 

[Jean Valjean]

The local church can inform you of resurrection of the people that resurrect with Christ... Its all there in their documents! This is why tombs disappear on the graveyard...this is why a mistel hung on the door of the resurrected!

 

[Neb]

Nobody feeds us except the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha. Baha’is have no leaders that tell us what to believe. Christians have leaders and they just follow those leaders, the Church, instead of thinking for themselves. They have just accepted the Church doctrines that were decided upon by councils of mere men, that have been fed to them for almost 2000 years.

”the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha” and mixed it with the “Church doctrines that were decided upon by councils of mere men”, is that what you mean?

 

[Truthseeker]

Part of what I've been getting at is... Did Adam even exist? If he did, what in the Bible is true and what is myth? If Baha'is don't believe in the Creation Story, why believe in Adam? Why make him a manifestation? Why give him a "cycle"?

In the Bible, they had a faint recollection of Adam, and used Him in a story.

 

[Neb]

Calculation of the age of the earth's age is based on radiometric testing of a number of isotopes of which argon is just one. Analysis of meteorites is particularly important.

By what standard of studies or age assignments did they compare it from?

 

[Jean Valjean]

If we read medicine, there are slight evidence of resurrection, there are two outcome i can come from read the idea that someone is deceased and walk among the patients of the hospital
a. fraud
b. he's alive from the dead.

parhaps c. someones fault in the documents

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

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.

The subject is complex and requires complex sophisticated analysis. Your approach of throwing out anything supernatural sounding and assuming the remainder is historical is too simplistic to lead to historic truth. You might as well read The Jefferson Bible if that is as far as you are willing to go. The truth is that even the non-supernatural passages are not necessarily historical. This is especially true of Gospels written after Mark since clear agendas can be seen in the additions they make to Mark. The fact that these other Gospels incorporate portions of Mark but provide much other material that not only has a plain purpose in furthering a program unique to the writer but is in strong contradiction to the other Gospels points directly at invention.

If the beliefs of a historical Jesus can be found in the NT, it could only be in the Gospel of Mark. Let’s see what we can find.

In Mark 2:15-17, there are many publicans (tax collectors) and sinners among the followers of Jesus. These are the outcasts of society, at least according to the ‘scribes and Pharisees’ who criticized him for it.

Mark 7:1-13 has Pharisees and scribes (again) criticize Jesus because his followers do not observe the hand-washing ritual. As pointed out here this has nothing to do with hygiene and is to be done even if one’s hands are clean. The (written) Torah contains a ritual that priests must follow but nothing like this for anyone else. Extending the ritual to those outside the Temple is apparently part of the Oral Torah tradition, a Pharisaic tradition. As can be seen in this passage, Jesus opposes the Oral Torah because it has been made to conflict with the Written Torah. The Shammai Pharisees, who were predominant in that sect at that time were all about obsessively following the letter of the Law, including the ‘mad made’ ones, as Jesus calls them. An important point here is that people at a distance from Jerusalem are not following a certain ritual that is not in the Written Torah. The take away from this passage is that the Pharisees are seeking to impose their rules on people, regardless of how it may impact the Written Torah

Mark 10:2-12 has Jesus opposed to divorce for any reason. This makes an interesting contrast with other schools of thought. Hillel thought a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all. Shammai restricted divorce to infidelity only. (BTW in Matthew’s version of this passage he sides with Shammai.)

In Mark 10:17-29 Jesus is asked how to obtain eternal life. He replies with certain commandments to follow. These are straight out of the Decalogue. They are the commandments that relate to action. Since Jesus is clearly an observant Jew based on his strong defense of the Torah in chapter 7 above, he would surely not have meant to discard the others. After all, in verse 18 Jesus emphasizes the supremacy of God, who gave the commandments. Jesus can be seen to be stressing the importance of action. This fits well with the attitude of Jesus in chapter 7 in opposing mere obsessive rule-following.

This is followed by Jesus pointing out that wealth can be a serious obstacle to entering the kingdom of God. The disciples were astonished at this. Why should that be? At that time (and other times including now) material wealth was considered a sign of God’s favor. If even a rich man did not make the grade, what hope was there for the disciples who had given up everything? But Jesus says that it is really the other way around. The last shall be first.

Mark 11:15-18 has the famous episode of Jesus chasing the moneychangers out of the Temple. He calls them thieves. Apparently, they were not just changing money to the appropriate kind but ripping off their customers by charging exorbitant exchange rates. But notice that Jesus was on the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem. If he opposed the Temple or the priesthood he would not have done that.

In Mark 12:13-27 it is clear that Jesus believes in a resurrection. It is the Sadducees who challenge him on this, the only mention Mark makes of the Sadducees. It was the Sadducees, the wealthy upper class, who were responsible for maintenance of the Temple. If Jesus were opposed to the Temple and/or priesthood, Mark would surely have said more about the Sadducees.


In Mark 12:28-44 Jesus says that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus already spoke of the need to follow the (written) Torah. As in chapter 10, he is not rejecting it but underlining what is important about it. It is the ‘love your neighbor’ part that has been forgotten and needs to be remembered again. Notice that in verse 33 the scribe refers to Hosea 6:6, that Matthew makes explicit and puts in the mouth of Jesus. What Jesus said “is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices”.

If you want to know what the mission of Jesus was all about, read and think on the above.

Concerning your post, I have no idea what baptism has to do with ‘mercy before sacrifice’, or where you find reference to demonstrations and picketing at the Temple. Mark refers to an uprising but there are no details given. However, I am sure you will provide some.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Rough Beast, of course I understood that KAP and KP were abbreviations of Caesar in Greek. You seem to get strange ideas popping up in your head in order to convince yourself that only you have studied the Jesus story.

Back in Post #900 you did not seem to have any notion that KP and KAP were the Greek letters Kappa Rho and Kappa Alpha Rho. Now suddenly you knew all about it.

Back in Post #878 you said that KP and KAP meant “'Kratros (sic) Romaion' or The Power of the Romans”. This is in fact the suggestion made by Meshorer in 1982 as documented here and previously quoted. Now you say it is a contraction of the Greek for Caesar. That is an intriguing possibility. But it is not what you said previously.

The difference in us seems to be that you are Institutionally indoctrinated, and that I have individually investigated.

Back in Post #860 I presented a long list of my opinions on the development of the Gospels that I came up with by individual investigation. I challenged you then and now repeat that challenge to tell me what institution teaches these ideas. Do I need to repeat that long list? Very obviously I am not institutionally indoctrinated. But you continue to repeat that claim without basis and in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

On occasions you have even reversed points that I have made and then contended against me about such perceptions.

It is possible that I may have misunderstood statements you made and responded inappropriately as a result. I am not aware of any such instances but we have exchanged many posts now so I could be wrong. Can you provide examples? If so, I will address them as may be needed.

It has become more and more as if you are a myther, Beast, as the possibility of true anecdotes seems to have reduced and the probability/certainty of theological myth, contrivance and psycho-spin has increased in your various claims.

I am not sure what a myther is. If you mean that I believe in myths as real history, I do not. If you mean that I think the Jesus story is entirely mythical, I do not, If you mean that I recognize that the Gospel writers were inventing what could be called myths to suit their individual purposes, that I do. However I think the word ‘myth’ is not really appropriate. If you want to know about myth read Campbell or Armstrong or even Hamilton. Myth is eternal. It takes place in a time out of time. The Gospels were telling stories about supposedly recent historic events.

You seem to accept that a Galilean peasant existed, with a name that appeared many hundreds of years after his existence, but you just cannot extend that to a Galilean 2nd order peasant with unusual ability and perception who took interest in, joined, supported and later picked up the Baptist's genuine mission against Temple and priesthood corruption.

Hundreds of years? What did that mean?

You have given zero evidence of a real historic Jesus opposing the Temple and the priesthood. I have given very substantial reason for thinking that is definitely not the case. Yet you continue to make this claim again and again.

You cling to individual groups such as Sadducee and Pharisee rather than the general priesthood, the upper class of all Israel............ Oh.... you're totally cemented into fixed perceptions.......... ??

Despite your imaginings, the Pharisees are not the priesthood as I have repeatedly pointed out. Yet you cling to the priesthood idea. Simply repeating it without any backing accomplishes nothing.

Can you now see how clever Jesus was when he asked for a coin to be shown and then asked 'Whose features, whose inscription'? He gave the priests present the opportunity to choose to answer 'Caesar' rather than 'Oh, that's Baal, all over our Temple!'. He helped them to save their own lives. :shrug;

The passage you are referring to is Matthew 22:15-21

Verse 17 makes it very clear that they are talking about tribute to Caesar, not the Temple. They wanted to entrap him on the question of Roman taxation, an unpopular topic. If he spoke for the tribute, he would be unpopular in the mind of those present. If he spoke against the tribute, that was grounds for the Romans to arrest him. If they were talking about the Temple Tax, he would certainly not speak against it and there would be no opportunity for entrapment. Your premise is just wrong.

The Greek word used for the coin they showed to Jesus in verse 19 is dēnarion. This is a denarius, a Roman coin. It is not the shekel or half-shekel required for the Temple Tax. Jesus asks whose picture is on it and what the inscription says. (Verse 20) They say Caesar. (Verse 21)

Here is the most common denarius of that era, depicting Tiberius Caesar. All denarii from Augustus on had the image of an Emperor and the word Caesar.

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...enarius.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121113035554

The image is Caesar’s. The inscription says Caesar. The word used in denarius. Not a Temple Tax coin, about which there would be no controversy about ‘rendering’ ad no chance for entrapment.

I have previously discussed this passage and the passage in Matthew 17:24-27 where the coin involved is a stater. In both of these passages, a coin is mentioned that is not a shekel but has the value of a half-shekel (denarius) or of a shekel (stater, payment for 2 people). Also notice that in the Matt. 17 passage, there are people who collect the tribute in Capernaum. According to the Mishna on the Tekalim, the Temple Tax was collected at the Temple, not in ‘field offices’. And once more, notice that in Matt. 17, there is debate as to whether to pay the tribute.

These passages in Matthew are not about the Temple Tax, they are about the war reparations tax levied on Jews, of the same amount as the Temple Tax. The Romans would have no problem in accepting whatever popular currency there was of the right value and the Tyrian shekel was no longer minted. Matthew invented these passages when he wrote around 80 AD or so, apparently to discourage resistance to the Roman taxation and the problems that would bring.

By the way, Galileans spoke Eastern Aramaic, which is why their speech was so noticeable to Southern folks.

Incorrect. Eastern Aramaic was (and is) the Aramaic originally spoken in the general Mesopotamian region, and later further west. Galilean Aramaic was spoken in the Galilee, as opposed to the Judean dialect spoke in Jerusalem. (Ibid.)

After all of your long long posts, why don't you just write, in one short paragragh, a synopsis about wehat you really believe about the Jesus story? Let's see you do something really short and sweet?

Read my previous post about finding a historic Jesus in Mark and tell me what you think it shows abut the Jesus story. In a subject such as this, ‘short’ is not ‘sweet’. But here is the basic idea.

Jesus opposed the program of the Pharisees to impose on all Jews man-made rules that are not in the (written) Torah and that abrogate the spirit of the Torah. Jesus wanted instead to spread the idea of focusing on the spirit of the original Torah, with emphasis on (1) love of God {2} love of our neighbor. He got in trouble with the authorities for basically disturbing the peace on a grand scale and the Romans did their thing on him.

Just what Jesus believed in terms of messianism and apocalypticism is unclear. Did he view himself as a messianic figure? Did the common people view him that way?

 

[CG Didymus]

I really do not know anything for sure but Baha'u'llah knew, because Baha'u'llah had the knowledge of God:

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow. The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

So if Baha'u'llah wrote about Adam and other Prophets in the Bible, then we know they existed.

Once we Baha'is believe in Baha'u'llah we accept everything He wrote... We believe He was as infallible, so it is a package deal.

Christians use that same argument. They say Creation is real. The Flood and the devil and hell are real, because Jesus believed them. But I guess Jesus was wrong?

 

[Jean Valjean]

How throughough are we???

 

[CG Didymus]

In regards the resurrection consider modern biblical scholarship. Use of allegory and symbolism is well established throughout both the NT and OT. I don't believe there's anything Baha'is are saying that bible scholars are not.

Adam is part of the traditions of all the Abrahamic Faiths. It's clear there is much mythology. How much is literally true if any is largely a moot point that is impossible to establish historically.

Then why say that Adam is a manifestation? How about Noah and Abraham? You don't believe what the Bible says happened in their lives, but you believe in them? That they were manifestations? Little things add up to a lot of questionable inconsistencies.

 

[Jean Valjean]

The evidence is there for you, it's not only in the bible. The historical Jesus, is still among us today... he resurrected didn't he!

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The evidence is there for you, it's not only in the bible. The historical Jesus, is still among us today... he resurrected didn't he!

According to Acts 1:1-11 Jesus ascended into the clouds, presumably into heaven. Which parts are to be believed and which not?

 

[Muffled]

Not according to many modern biblical scholars who take the time to seriously consider and investigate these matters:

Modern scholars have concluded that the Canonical Gospels went through four stages in their formation:

1. The first stage was oral, and included various stories about Jesus such as healing the sick, or debating with opponents, as well as parables and teachings.
2. In the second stage, the oral traditions began to be written down in collections (collections of miracles, collections of sayings, etc.), while the oral traditions continued to circulate
3. In the third stage, early Christians began combining the written collections and oral traditions into what might be called "proto-gospels" – hence Luke's reference to the existence of "many" earlier narratives about Jesus
4. In the fourth stage, the authors of our four Gospels drew on these proto-gospels, collections, and still-circulating oral traditions to produce the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation. It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.

Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia

I believe the scholars are speculating.

 

[CG Didymus]

In the Bible, they had a faint recollection of Adam, and used Him in a story.

Who had a faint recollection of Adam? And if they used this mythic character in a story isn't that more myth?

 

[Muffled]

Thats Ok that is the way of the World and you are free to choose your path.

I can list many of Gods Messengers that a Baha'i does see as being from our One God and will live a life of Love dedicated to them, by service to all Humanity.

Abraham
Krishna
Moses
Zoroaster
Buddha
Jesus Christ
Muhammad
Bab
Baha'u'llah...to name a few well known.

They one and all are the 'Christ, the First and Last, Beginning and End.

They are all of the Resurrection.

Regards Tony

I believe my way is to look at the evidence. The world speculates and fantasizes.

I don't believe Abraham can be considered a messenger but certainly he had a relationship with God.
I don't believe there is enough evidence to say that Krishna is anything more than a religious philosopher.
I believe Moses qualifies as a messenger and had a personal relationship with God.
I believe I don't know much about Zoroaster so I would consider him a religious philosopher unless I find out more.
I believe the Buddha is a religious philosopher.
I believe Jesus is God in the flesh so God'smessage comes to us straight from the mouth of God.
I believe Muhammad is a messenger of God and may have had a personal relationship but his reputed comments listed in the Hadiths may be nothing more than forgeries from religious philosophers.
I believe the BAB and Baha'u'llah did some religious philosophical writing.

I believe there is no evidence to support this statement and that the statement is false.

I believe they must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior to be part of the Resurrection except for Jesus who is the Resurrection.

 

[Muffled]

Who had a faint recollection of Adam? And if they used this mythic character in a story isn't that more myth?

I believe Moses wrote the book of Genesis so it is possible that he was receiving his information from God. It is a stretch to think that folklore lasted that long.