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

[sayak83]

I believe my beliefs are dependable because they come from the living God in the person of the Paraclete.

I don't believe you qualify as a judge of whether people are mistaken or not.

I do qualify as I know the true God directly and you don't. You follow a book and I have direct first hand knowledge.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The apostles were right to abrogate the Old Testament laws as the laws had outlived their usefulness. As Christ indicated the Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).
Further new wine can not be placed in old wineskins. The new wine was Christ Teachings and it could not be held with the old framework of Mosaic law (Mark 2:18 -22).

The Apostles did not abrogate the OT (Jewish) laws. Paul records multiple instances of clashes on exactly that point. It was Paul who wanted to abrogate Jewish Law and have no one practice it anymore. Even in the Synoptic Gospels, which show strong Pauline influence, there is no indication of abandoning the Law. The Synoptic Gospels are very clear about Jesus and the Apostles being observant Jews. John seems to want to have it both ways, intimating that the Law s already repealed in the lifetime of Jesus, but having Jesus be very observant concerning the pilgrimage requirements.

The ‘wineskin’ analogy appears even in Matthew, who has Jesus insist that the Law is not going away. To Matthew at least it does not mean forgetting Jewish Law. Notice that in all three Synoptic Gospels, the Law continues to be observed right to the end, despite the wineskin analogy.

The teachings of Jesus were straight out of the Torah, very often exact quotes.

In a similar manner, the Teachings of Christ that born out of a time where empires, male domination, and slavery are now the old wine. That's why its so hard to remain a conservative Christian for a thinking human being who is genuinely sensitive to the humanity of others.

Gentiles were never required to follow Jewish Law. From the Jewish standpoint only the Noahide Laws applied to Gentiles. Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia

The squabbles seen in Paul were about whether Christianity (following the Christ) was part of Judaism or not. If it was (as the apostles apparently thought) Jewish law applied to Christian converts. If it was not, then Jewish law did not apply. Paul went even beyond that, insisting that Jewish Law was to be abandoned even by Jews. This was utterly inimical to what was clearly the origin form of Christianity.

I agree the gospel writers clearly thought of Jesus as the Messiah and I just naturally assume He is. What gives you cause to think He may not be?

I need once again to remind you that I am not a believer. I find the story of how Christianity came about to be truly fascinating. But unlike some non-believers, I bear no animosity. I do not think there was, is or will be any such thing as a Messiah. But who held what beliefs and why is part of the story I find so fascinating.

How about the reality of Satan, demons and hell? Literal truth or something else?

The writers apparently believed in these things and presumed their readers did as well. I of course do not.

Ironically Matthew has indicated Jesus isn't literally a descendant of David through the virgin birth story.

Matthew 1 is deeper than it seems. But his adroit tour en l'air is too involved to deal with now.

Likewise the use of the Temple theme in Mark et al.

Next time …

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that is true but I interpret by the Holy Spirit and alter my beliefs accordingly.

I don't believe that is in context with Jesus being Lord but it is not impossible for a prophet to miss on a prophecy. I am not familiar with this but I suppose it comes from one of the minor prophets.

Was Zeke a minor prophet? And please do not alter my quotes without making it clear that you did so. That is not allowed in any well moderated forum. I do not want others to assume that I am an abuser of "Green ink - RationalWiki"

 

[CG Didymus]

Do the gospel writers make it clear when Jesus is going to tell a parable? Then the thing about other religious "myths". In some religions they threw people into volcanoes or cut their hearts out as a sacrifice to their gods. Were those religious beliefs true or false? Were the creator of those beliefs deceitful, deluded, or what? Since Baha'is believe God has given guidance to all people, who was the manifestation that came up with human sacrificing? I'd assume, none. So where did these beliefs come from?

Now for the gospel writers. Someone would have had to come up with the resurrection allegory. Matthew or Mark? Or, it came out of a tradition that Jesus had risen from the dead. Wouldn't the early Christians let everyone know that it was a parable? Why would they tell the story as if it really happened... tell everybody that Mary and all the apostles had seen Jesus alive, and forget to tell them... "Oh by the way. It's all symbolic."

And how about the ones that stole the body? They let the others believe the lie that Jesus had come back to life? For me, if that's what happened, it is still a hoax.

It's sad when these threads started by Baha'is start to fade. These are important questions to explore. The Baha'i claim that Christ has already returned, if true, is the most important thing to have ever happened for humankind. But, many times, Baha'is don't have adequate and/or convincing arguments to support their claims.

This question about whether Jesus rose physically from the dead would destroy historical Christianity. It destroys what the NT seems to be saying. If the Baha'i are correct in this, then the whole ending chapters of every gospel has been a symbolic fabrication added into the Jesus story. Is it obviously allegory? No, not when people are told that the NT is the truth of what happened. So as unbelievable as the events in the life of Jesus are, his followers are expected to believe it. They are expected to put their trust in the writings of the NT. If those writings aren't dependable, then what do we know about Jesus? What do we know about God? And, what do we know and can trust as true about the return of Christ?

Baha'is, by making key events in the life of Jesus allegorical, they completely change everything that was ever thought or believed by Christians. If the Baha'is are right, Christians have never had the correct beliefs about God and Jesus. He is not alive and well physically. He is not the one that will return. He is not the one that is going to judge the living and the dead. And, if the Baha'is are right, he is not even the "lamb of God" mentioned in the Book of Revelation. He is nothing in the Book of Revelation. All the references to "The Lamb" to the "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" and any other such things are all switched to the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

Baha'is have some strong points they make. They have some strong prophetic interpretations. But, they also have many that aren't. Their case for the "symbolic" resurrection is somewhere in the middle. They have some good points and several very weak points. And I hope more of them take the time to respond to questions being asked here on this thread.

 

[Hawkins]

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?

The resurrection is fundamental in saying that He conquered death itself because He's from God to carry out such a mission. Or else, He would have been just another dead man ever claimed himself a savior.

The evidence is so obvious that each and every dead man can tell. The strong feeling of being forsaken, the giving out of spirit along with a loud cry (it won't be heard in our realm though) they are all signs of the process of a human death. We don't know the meaning simply because no dead man can come back (perhaps except me) to tell you their death experience. On the other hand, if no dead man can come back to tell the disciples what a human death process is, how come those signs signifying death were written in the Bible? Someone must have come back from death to tell the disciples about the characteristics of death for them to write down in the Bible. That's what Jesus did after His resurrection! That's the evidence!

 

[CG Didymus]

It's sad when these threads started by Baha'is start to fade. These are important questions to explore. The Baha'i claim that Christ has already returned, if true, is the most important thing to have ever happened for humankind. But, many times, Baha'is don't have adequate and/or convincing arguments to support their claims.

This question about whether Jesus rose physically from the dead would destroy historical Christianity. It destroys what the NT seems to be saying. If the Baha'i are correct in this, then the whole ending chapters of every gospel has been a symbolic fabrication added into the Jesus story. Is it obviously allegory? No, not when people are told that the NT is the truth of what happened. So as unbelievable as the events in the life of Jesus are, his followers are expected to believe it. They are expected to put their trust in the writings of the NT. If those writings aren't dependable, then what do we know about Jesus? What do we know about God? And, what do we know and can trust as true about the return of Christ?

Baha'is, by making key events in the life of Jesus allegorical, they completely change everything that was ever thought or believed by Christians. If the Baha'is are right, Christians have never had the correct beliefs about God and Jesus. He is not alive and well physically. He is not the one that will return. He is not the one that is going to judge the living and the dead. And, if the Baha'is are right, he is not even the "lamb of God" mentioned in the Book of Revelation. He is nothing in the Book of Revelation. All the references to "The Lamb" to the "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" and any other such things are all switched to the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

Baha'is have some strong points they make. They have some strong prophetic interpretations. But, they also have many that aren't. Their case for the "symbolic" resurrection is somewhere in the middle. They have some good points and several very weak points. And I hope more of them take the time to respond to questions being asked here on this thread.

"I hope more of them take the time to respond to questions being asked here on this thread." I guess not. You Baha'is are all done?

 

[Muffled]

I do qualify as I know the true God directly and you don't. You follow a book and I have direct first hand knowledge.

I believe you need to read my lips: I speak the word of God and I know you do not because you have shown you don't know everything because I do not rely completely on the book, however as God I credit the book as having what I intended it to have.

 

[Muffled]

Was Zeke a minor prophet? And please do not alter my quotes without making it clear that you did so. That is not allowed in any well moderated forum. I do not want others to assume that I am an abuser of "Green ink - RationalWiki"

I believe Zeke was a minor prophet but he had an important message about the Messiah.

I believe I will accommodate you about colorizing what I am referring to but have fun trying to figure out what I am referring to.

 

[Muffled]

It's sad when these threads started by Baha'is start to fade. These are important questions to explore. The Baha'i claim that Christ has already returned, if true, is the most important thing to have ever happened for humankind. But, many times, Baha'is don't have adequate and/or convincing arguments to support their claims.

This question about whether Jesus rose physically from the dead would destroy historical Christianity. It destroys what the NT seems to be saying. If the Baha'i are correct in this, then the whole ending chapters of every gospel has been a symbolic fabrication added into the Jesus story. Is it obviously allegory? No, not when people are told that the NT is the truth of what happened. So as unbelievable as the events in the life of Jesus are, his followers are expected to believe it. They are expected to put their trust in the writings of the NT. If those writings aren't dependable, then what do we know about Jesus? What do we know about God? And, what do we know and can trust as true about the return of Christ?

Baha'is, by making key events in the life of Jesus allegorical, they completely change everything that was ever thought or believed by Christians. If the Baha'is are right, Christians have never had the correct beliefs about God and Jesus. He is not alive and well physically. He is not the one that will return. He is not the one that is going to judge the living and the dead. And, if the Baha'is are right, he is not even the "lamb of God" mentioned in the Book of Revelation. He is nothing in the Book of Revelation. All the references to "The Lamb" to the "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" and any other such things are all switched to the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

Baha'is have some strong points they make. They have some strong prophetic interpretations. But, they also have many that aren't. Their case for the "symbolic" resurrection is somewhere in the middle. They have some good points and several very weak points. And I hope more of them take the time to respond to questions being asked here on this thread.

Maybe that is why they fade because not having a good argument leaves them vulnerable so all that is left for them to do is hide from the truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe that is why they fade because not having a good argument leaves them vulnerable so all that is left for them to do is hide from the truth.

It's very difficult to debate or discuss the issue of the resurrection when they believe Jesus died and is still dead. And they say all verses that talk as if he rose physically are symbolic and have been interpreted wrong.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"I hope more of them take the time to respond to questions being asked here on this thread." I guess not. You Baha'is are all done?

I have been extremely busy CG, so haven't had too much time for RF of late. Sorry to anyone here who feels abandoned.

I'm currently the Baha'i representative of the interfaith council of my city and so have been talking to a guy similar age to me who used to attend the church (Baptist) I used to attend. The only thing is that about 4 years ago his marriage broke down and he subsequently converted to Judaism. He attended our Ridvan celebration which was great. He believes the story of Noah as recorded in genesis is literally true. Why not you may ask. The story as written has a great deal of detail about the dimensions of the ark so one could be forgiven for having the impression from the account that it is literally true. My sense is that there's not too much point in trying to convince him that he could be wrong as that's what he believes.

I'm a Baha'i so believe in Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah didn't rise from the dead, appear to His disciples, and then ascend througgh the stratosphere into outer spce. He didn't build a boat that housed all the animals and plants in the world and then endured a great flood that covered the whole earth. Baha'u'llah's miracle for me is somewhat more compelling and real. Over 40 years He endured torture, imprisonment and exile at the hand of the Persian and Ottoman Empires. Through it all he arose to procliam with love and wisdom a vision for huamnity that is world embracing that has become even more relevant and more urgently needed today than it was back then. That's the miracle I believe in.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have been extremely busy CG, so haven't had too much time for RF of late. Sorry to anyone here who feels abandoned.

I'm currently the Baha'i representative of the interfaith council of my city and so have been talking to a guy similar age to me who used to attend the church (Baptist) I used to attend. The only thing is that about 4 years ago his marriage broke down and he subsequently converted to Judaism. He attended our Ridvan celebration which was great. He believes the story of Noah as recorded in genesis is literally true. Why not you may ask. The story as written has a great deal of detail about the dimensions of the ark so one could be forgiven for having the impression from the account that it is literally true. My sense is that there's not too much point in trying to convince him that he could be wrong as that's what he believes.

I'm a Baha'i so believe in Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah didn't rise from the dead, appear to His disciples, and then ascend througgh the stratosphere into outer spce. He didn't build a boat that housed all the animals and plants in the world and then endured a great flood that covered the whole earth. Baha'u'llah's miracle for me is somewhat more compelling and real. Over 40 years He endured torture, imprisonment and exile at the hand of the Persian and Ottoman Empires. Through it all he arose to procliam with love and wisdom a vision for huamnity that is world embracing that has become even more relevant and more urgently needed today than it was back then. That's the miracle I believe in.

Yeah, you're back. But the rest of the gang kind of disappeared also.