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

[oldbadger]

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.

No no....... No you don't!
I understood that KP and KAP were abbreviations for Caesar in Greek.

It is possible that I may have misunderstood statements you made and responded inappropriately as a result. ................Can you provide examples?

...and so you would draw me into a debate which involves looking far back to present you with your posts which showed that you failed to understand something that I wrote?
Rough Best, you don't even understand that Yeshua demonstrated and picketed in the Temple on his second visit that week, and picketed again making speech against the priesthood during his third visit, and there it was, written down for you to read.But you can write pages of nonsense about stuff that you don't believe in!
You don't understand that I am not interested in what you don't believe in, I needed to know what you DO BELIEVE IN, which could be written on a stamp as far as HJ goes, it seems.

I am not sure what a myther is. ...................If you mean that I think the Jesus story is entirely mythical, I do not, .......

Bingo! Now, please write down what you DO BELIEVE Yeshua really did, without anything that you don't believe left out. Just write a precis of what he really was and what he did.

Writing in circles is over.......... just tell us the real facts of the Jesus story.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

It's absolutely not allegory in my opinion. The Gospel writers knew when they were using parables, for example - they tell the reader something like: Jesus taught them a parable, saying...

These parables are set in other contexts - Jesus went here or there in the real world, occasionally teaching in non-literal ways within a literal historical context. It's in this historical context that the death/resurrection of Jesus is presented.

So the authors present the resurrection of Jesus in literal / historical terms, but I agree completely with Ehrman that belief in the resurrection is a theological belief (I think Ehrman would agree that it's not exclusively theological - one can believe in the resurrection, I assume, without affirming that God did it).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am not assuming anything. For the record I am not a traditional believer but neither do I criticize those who are. My interest is in what the various writers wanted their readers to understand.

As I have written elsewhere, it seems to me that the author of Acts ('Luke') was employing imagery to connect to Daniel 7:13-14 as well as the several Olivet Discourse references to Daniel, including in Luke's own Gospel. For those who took the idea of heaven in the sky literally, they were free to do so in the Ascension passage in Acts 1:6-11. For those of a less literal bent, the mental connection with the other passages was enough for Luke's purpose. Which in this case was to say that Jesus is coming back alright but not next Tuesday so don’t hold your breath waiting. In the meantime, there is a church to build.

But I do not see Luke as employing any explicit symbolism or metaphor in the sense of 'this means that'. Luke's Gospel incorporates the empty tomb theme, as do all the Gospels, which points clearly to a bodily resurrection. Luke 24:36-43 very plainly has the risen Jesus be in a bodily form. Luke is definitely in the physical resurrection camp.

Why do you think people accepted Christ, when He obviously did not Phisically fulfill a great deal of the old Testament Prophecy in the ways the Jews were waiting for?

Why is it then acceptable to take the same stance with the Resurrection and Return of Christ?

Why would we think we are more likely to be able to see Christ, when He returns, especially as many now have drawn a conclusion as to how has and now it will happen, just as the Jews had done?

Regards Tony

 

[Neb]

No, that is not what I meant. We do not mix the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha with the Church doctrines. They are completely separate from the Church doctrines.

What Church doctrines are you talking about?

 

[Jean Valjean]

Thats something only mohammed would know...

I don't go there.

I could..

But I wont!

Death adds.

Christian daily has...

...resurraction adds

And a victory chant...

 

[Neb]

If God is the owner and you do not own God then you do not own the Bible.

You need to read your statement again.

Christians do not OWN the Bible.

”OWN”? What like a property? God is the owner of the Bible and we Christians just follow them.

 

[Neb]

Nobody owns God so that means anyone is FREE to interpret the Bible however they want to.

Peter was talking about Paul's epistles in 2nd Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

You are "FREE to interpret the Bible however" YOU "want to" for your "own destruction"

 

[Neb]

Yet Christians claim that only they can interpret the Bible correctly.

2nd Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

What is “rightly dividing the word of truth”? “NOT dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately” -Vine

And compare this to your own interpretation of the Bible

There are a lot of things that are true that are not in the Bible.

So, by inserting them in the bible the “things that are true”, according to you, like insisting that baha’u’llah is in the Bible [your own TWISTED interpretation of the bible] BUT “that are not in the Bible”, makes it as part of the Bible, even if it’s not in the Bible, is a false interpretation of the Bible, right? IOW, If it’s NOT in the Bible, like baha’u’llah, then there is only ONE INTERPRETATION for that, i.e., it is NOT in the BIBLE, right?

Is this really hard to understand?

 

[Neb]

There is no reason to believe that, especially because they cannot even agree amongst themselves what it means.

Asked and Answered already

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”.

 

[Neb]

So what? That does not prove anything. Why would it be in the Bible? There are a lot of things that are true that are not in the Bible.

You use the bible as your reference to support your doctrine but when it contradicts your doctrine you say: "There are a lot of things that are true that are not in the Bible." Your doctrines are full of contradictions.

 

[Neb]

Just because Jesus was a descendant of David does not mean Jesus was the Messiah... NOT IN BIBLE.

Christ the Messiah is in the Bible. Here is your favorite link: Is Jesus the Messiah?

What I don’t see in bible, as the Messiah, is, baha’u’llah. If you can find his name in the Bible, as the Messiah, you will see me here no more.

 

[Neb]

As I said in a previous post, I am not challenging that so don’t include me in that. I am just an innocent bystander.

You are disowning your brother. You are here to support the OP.

Without Christ’s resurrection, Christianity is meaningless.

“If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.” 1 Corinthians 15:32

 

[Neb]

All of those verses were true during Jesus’ dispensation. That is what you do not understand or refuse to acknowledge. We now know that no NAME is above any other name:
"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

And of course what is rather obvious us that those verses are subject to many different interpretations; they mean one thing to you and something else to others.

“Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” -Romans 3:2.

What Paul meant is the Old Testament.

“First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God”. Baha’u’llah was a Persian Shi’ite descended from Ishmael, NOT from the patriarchs, i.e., Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, then to King David, and to the Lord Jesus and according to the words of God, the Messiah will come from the line of Judah. So far we see NO Persians in the picture here, right? Meaning NO Baha'u'llah, right?

IOW, Baha’u’llah was NOT a Jew and based on the Bible, God would NOT ”ENTRUST” His words to any other nations, like Persia or any Muslim nations, but to the Jews only, right? You cannot argue from this, i.e., if we are talking about the Bible. It’s either you are a Jew or a Gentile and there is no one in between or any third option here. If you are a Gentile you will see yourself in Acts 10 and Acts 15 as the beginning of the salvation of the Gentiles. Before this Jews and Gentiles proselytes only meaning adhering to the Law of Moses.

 

[Neb]

Sorry, but that was time/date stamped. For this day and age, His Manifestation, meaning God’s Manifestation is Baha’u’llah. It is too bad you do not like that but that is what God has said:

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

You could insist that INTERPRETATION if you want and like you said before

Nobody owns God so that means anyone is FREE to interpret the Bible however they want to.

Peter was talking about Paul's epistles in 2nd Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

You are "FREE to interpret the Bible however" YOU "want to" for your "own destruction"

 

[Neb]

I do not see how that is twisting/adulterating anything in the Bible because I am not contradicting/changing anything that is IN the Bible or saying it is not true.

You need to understand that Baha'u'llah, a Persian Shi'ite, is a contradiction already.

Why would the genealogy of Baha’u’llah be in the Bible?

It was never a question at all, if there was a Baha'u'llah genealogy in the Bible, because there was NONE, to begin with, right? If one question Christ genealogy then one can point to the Bible, or the right direction, because it exists in the Bible, right?

But the fact that it is not does not mean that Baha’u’llah was not descended from David.

”But the fact that it is not” in Bible only means “Baha’u’llah was not descended from David”.

The absence of evidence is not exactly an evidence that Baha’u’llah was a descendant of King David.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why assume physical clouds?

Could it not be the Clouds of doubt and unbelief, anything that prevents us from seeing the Spiritual Jesus risen, which is the Christ? These same clouds are what Christ will return on.

Regards Tony

Why would Jesus ascend into clouds of doubt? Here we have a supposed symbolic story of people finding the tomb empty, seeing Jesus alive, talking to him, touching him, then him rising to be at the right hand of the Father. Where's the uncertainty?

 

[Jean Valjean]

I am not sure of what you been taught... but Ishmael is a Desceandant of Abraham through the bondswoman Hagar according to the bible...

 

[CG Didymus]

The Trust you need to find is in the Scriptures themselves. Trust they are telling us what we need to know.

What are your views on the risen Christ, what makes more sense to you?

Regards Tony

Like I said... I have questions and doubts about both Baha'is and Christians.

 

[Neb]

We do not have any clergy who teach anybody anything... Baha’is teach themselves.... The way they do that is to read the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, as well as other books about the Baha’i Faith.

This is what you call doctrine.

The beliefs of other religions have nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith except that their spiritual truths are the same. However, those are separate religions even though they are all from the same God.

The Baha’i Faith does not need the beliefs of other religions because it is a standalone religion with its own Prophet who received His Own Revelation from God.

Progressive Revelation means exactly what it says on Wikipedia:

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

Nobody owns God so that means anyone is FREE to interpret the Bible however they want to.

"Free to interpret" the words of God "however they want to" and "The beliefs of other of other religions have nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith". Your twisted interpretation of Baha'u'llah as a descendant of David has "nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith". Really?

 

[metis]

All religious and philosophical faiths have "doctrines". To not do so would mean that they don't teach anything in terms of what should or should not be done.