The Resurrection: Why does it matter?

[blü 2]

These are not six eyewitnesses.

Quite so. Nothing in the NT is by an eyewitness.

This is not a court case.

The ascertaining of what happened in history is indeed a forensic process, the search for all available evidence, the weighing of each part, and the inferences and conclusions that can validly be drawn. (As to your kidnapping example, forensics is not a subject alien to me or my experience.)

Or is it your argument that it doesn't matter whether there was a real resurrection or not?

But if it were, the fact that there are some discrepancies is actually good.

Not in this case. The discrepancies are so many and so distinct that the result is literally incredible ─ and that's before we come to the essential incredibility of the central claim.

Here's a video of the Hindu god Ganesha miraculously drinking milk. (Start at about 2:30 to save time.) Other videos of the same phenomenon are also out there.

As evidence of a miracle, its quality is many many orders of magnitude ahead of the NT's resurrection accounts, yet it doesn't persuade me.

Does it persuade you? If not, why would you believe the NT accounts? On faith, not evidence, perhaps?

For example, Luke is written by a physician. He describes in depth various diseases as well as the crucifixion in detail.

But we've already noted that the author of Luke, like all other NT authors, was not an eyewitness; and if the crucifixion actually occurred and did so around 30 CE, which is a fairly usual claim, then Luke was written some fifty-five years after the event.

For that matter, Jesus is not a historical figure at all. He's ALSO a historical figure.

Having looked into the question at some depth, I think the question whether there was an historical Jesus or not is open ─ there's no clincher either way. In particular, an historical Jesus is not necessary to explain the NT documents, but that doesn't rule out a real person somewhere in the story.

People accuse Jesus of being a plagiarized figure from Mithras (I think his name was)

There's evidence that the cult of Mithra was popular in Rome at that time, and there is, or has been, a suggestion that one of its religious spaces resembles early Christian ones. More common, perhaps, is the claim that Jesus is modeled on reports of Apollonius of Tyana, with whom he has many parallels ─ a birth with supernatural portents, an itinerant preaching that we should live for the next (eternal) world, not this one, hailed as son of God by his followers, healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, offended the Romans, was tried, ascended into heaven, appeared afterwards to some followers, and still looks after us. (My own view is that this is simply what holy men did in those days.)

 

[blü 2]

No eyewitness has been found? Peter wrote letters stating he was an eyewitness.

And Peter's letters are forgeries. Not a single actual eyewitness.

And what did "Peter" say he witnessed? What did he say the historical Jesus looked like? What words did he hear the historical Jesus say, that he quotes, and where, and when? What did he observe the historical Jesus doing that he records? And again, where, and when? In other words, what eyewitness account does he actually give?

Not sure of your supernatural statement - the supernatural in the bible is an article of faith.

Meaning you believe it? Or you don't believe it, although you're supposed to? Or what, exactly?

 

[CG Didymus]

So by saying that they are superior they deprive themselves of the wisdom and interpretations of other Manifestations and it also prevents unity between religions.

Judaism was told by their God to reject all the other religions around them. Egypt, Greece, The Romans, etc. Same with Christians, they don't what any other "wisdom" from other religions. They believe all of them were false. Now today, liberal Jews and Christians are trying to bring unity between religions. They are probably the best friends to have for Baha'is.

And secondly, if reformers were needed, that is same as saying that the older message was not perfect and required changes.

I personally view people like Joseph Smith and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as reformers of their particular Faith but not as independent Manifestations of God.

Did God speak to them? Why reform Islam and Christianity if Baha'u'llah was already here?

One is just another sect of Christianity while the other another sect of Islam but not Founders of a New Faith.

Did Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses found a new faith? No, they were all part of the story of Judaism. Then, what about Jainism and the Sikhs? Are they new faiths or part of some other religion?

 

[CG Didymus]

So if not true, it was fiction and then one has to ask why they would write it that way. I think it was probably to secure the faith of people, to get people to believe in Jesus and how special He was.

Okay, let's sort through some of this. On this, I'd agree, I'd say that they wanted to make Jesus special. The pagans had God/men of their own. Jesus had to be greater and more powerful than any of them.

The important point is that Jesus did not come back to life after three days,

Yet, the gospel say there were eyewitnesses that saw him.

So the gospels are lying about having eyewitnesses. And, lying about a empty tomb and that Jesus resurrected. It's all a lie. Sure, I can see that. But, how did Christians pull it off? That's some deception. They hid the body and spread the story of having seen Jesus alive and then seeing him ascend. ​

But the important thing for Baha'is is that the resurrection was symbolic and not literal.

To me it is just not true. I would not say it is symbolic; what would it symbolize?

The stories cannot be both true AND symbolic because that is a contradiction.

Isn't that what Abdul Baha is saying? That the followers of Jesus were "symbolically" his body. And they, after three days, started spreading his teachings and thereby bringing life to his body.... or something like that.

The life of Jesus IS a big deal, but the resurrection is not part of that life

The resurrection is the climax of the story.

I still think that Jesus existed and He could be trusted,

Okay, but what can we trust about his life and his teachings? The gospel writers made things up. He is not the miracle worker, he did not rise from the dead, and Paul says if he didn't rise from the dead that Christians are still in their sin, so Jesus did not forgive people of there sins. What do we trust? The sermon on the mount? There is two versions of that. In two different locations. Who remembered exactly what was said? And then 5000 men were fed with a few fish and some bread? I don't know Trailblazer, if we start picking the gospel apart, I don't see anything worth keeping and believing in.

Baha'is can live with it because we have the truth about Jesus that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha revealed

That truth is that the resurrection is symbolically true. You good with that?

 

[PruePhillip]

And Peter's letters are forgeries. Not a single actual eyewitness.

And what did "Peter" say he witnessed? What did he say the historical Jesus looked like? What words did he hear the historical Jesus say, that he quotes, and where, and when? What did he observe the historical Jesus doing that he records? And again, where, and when? In other words, what eyewitness account does he actually give?
Meaning you believe it? Or you don't believe it, although you're supposed to? Or what, exactly?

Peter wrote that he witnessed the "majesty" of Christ. He spoke, if I recall, of the passion, death, resurrection,
forgiveness, goodness as well. We don't know if Peter wrote the two letters directly of he employed a secretary.
But as the Gospel went out to the Gentiles of the Greek/Roman world it behooved the 200 or so preachers to
learn to speak Gentile.
It's clear that Peter was dealing with people who did not believe his account of Jesus: he said he did not follow
"cunningly devised fables" but he was "eye witness of his majesty."
Peter did not write a Gospel - and that's more evidence he was speaking to people who were familiar with the
account of Jesus. His letters were REMINDERS of what people already knew - and that's interesting.

 

[blü 2]

Peter wrote that he witnessed the "majesty" of Christ [...] he was "eye witness of his majesty.".

Ah, not an historical Jesus, just a visionary one. I could imagine one up for myself if I wished.

He spoke, if I recall, of the passion, death, resurrection, forgiveness, goodness as well.

But "Peter" didn't give an eyewitness account of any of them, right?

We don't know if Peter wrote the two letters directly of he employed a secretary.

One who felt free to insert his own ideas, influenced by Greek philosophy, eh? Was any part of them by "Peter", then?

It's clear that Peter was dealing with people who did not believe his account of Jesus:

But if (as seems highly improbable) there were any such accounts, we have no idea what he actually said, right?

His letters were REMINDERS of what people already knew - and that's interesting.

Unless (as seems highly probable), they're fakes, albeit of a familiar kind.

 

[PruePhillip]

Ah, not an historical Jesus, just a visionary one. I could imagine one up for myself if I wished.
But "Peter" didn't give an eyewitness account of any of them, right?
One who felt free to insert his own ideas, influenced by Greek philosophy, eh? Was any part of them by "Peter", then?
But if (as seems highly improbable) there were any such accounts, we have no idea what he actually said, right?
Unless (as seems highly probable), they're fakes, albeit of a familiar kind.

Yes, this is what Peter faced as he preached the Gospel - to the Greeks
it was madness and to the Jews blasphemy (recall, the Jews don't accept
the multitude of Redeemer passages in their bible because it contradicts
their idea of Messiah king.)
Peter wrote of Jesus. He claimed to be an eye witness to these events.
And he reminded people of what they had already read in early Gospel
accounts - otherwise he would be compelled to reinvent the wheel and
craft a Gospel as some of his compatriots had done.

The ones who wrote visionary accounts were people like Isaiah, David,
Job, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Malachi, Moses, Jacob etc.. Peter
said plainly he was an "eye witness" to what all these men foresaw.
This is not only offensive to the Jews, but to the modern mind.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, this is what Peter faced as he preached the Gospel - to the Greeks
it was madness and to the Jews blasphemy (recall, the Jews don't accept the multitude of Redeemer passages in their bible because it contradicts their idea of Messiah king.)

But that isn't what we're discussing. The point is that the personal eyewitness accounts of an historical Jesus total zero.

 

[PruePhillip]

But that isn't what we're discussing. The point is that the personal eyewitness accounts of an historical Jesus total zero.

We have, what, seven separate authors writing about Jesus?
Upon what basis do you say the historic Jesus has no basis?
This has to be the biggest argument in 2,000 years - there's
a lot at stake if its true.

 

[blü 2]

We have, what, seven separate authors writing about Jesus?
Upon what basis do you say the historic Jesus has no basis?

I don't argue that there wasn't an historical Jesus ─ I point out that there's no clincher either way, and that the writings about Jesus don't require an historical Jesus in order to have been written.

If there was indeed an historical Jesus, then we know virtually nothing about him, but it's possible there was such a figure.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't argue that there wasn't an historical Jesus ─ I point out that there's no clincher either way, and that the writings about Jesus don't require an historical Jesus in order to have been written.

If there was indeed an historical Jesus, then we know virtually nothing about him, but it's possible there was such a figure.

There's no "clincher" to anything in the bible. I like what one wavering
skeptic it - there's this "knife edge" of belief. What he meant was that for
something which would "prove" God there's something to "disprove"
God. For someone's "disproof" there's another's "proof."

I am fine with the history of Jesus. He claimed he was the Son of God.
He was famous throughout the Levant for his healing. He was rejected
by his own people. He was crucified for blasphemy.
And... His story, tied with the fate of the Jews, aligns with the Jewish
bible's prophecy of the Redeemer. He was announced to Israel by the
last of the Old Testament prophets - John the Baptist, also an historic
figure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He claimed he was the Son of God. He was famous throughout the Levant for his healing.

Does not prove anything. There might have been scores if not hundreds of such rebels in Israel at that time. Here, in India, we have thousands of Godmen right now, who are believed by people to have performed miracles. Ignorant and superstitious people believed many things. Not just then, even now.

 

[PruePhillip]

Does not prove anything. There might have been scores if not hundreds of such rebels in Israel at that time. Here, in India, we have thousands of Godmen right now, who are believed by people to have performed miracles. Ignorant and superstitious people believed many things. Not just then, even now.

True. But Jesus' fame goes way beyond His healings

 

[Aupmanyav]

True. But Jesus' fame goes way beyond His healings

Jesus' fame is for those who believe in a fantasy novel called Bible. Does not mean anything to me.

 

[blü 2]

There's no "clincher" to anything in the bible. I like what one wavering
skeptic it - there's this "knife edge" of belief. What he meant was that for something which would "prove" God there's something to "disprove" God. For someone's "disproof" there's another's "proof."

As I've likely mentioned before, I understand imaginary gods readily enough, but I have no idea what a real god ─ a god with objective existence ─ could be, and no one seems able to tell me.

I am fine with the history of Jesus. He claimed he was the Son of God.
He was famous throughout the Levant for his healing. He was rejected by his own people. He was crucified for blasphemy.
And... His story, tied with the fate of the Jews, aligns with the Jewish bible's prophecy of the Redeemer. He was announced to Israel by the last of the Old Testament prophets - John the Baptist, also an historic figure.

Paul knows next to nothing about an historical Jesus. The author of Mark wrote the only bio of Jesus, and that can be mapped onto sayings taken from the Tanakh, apparently thought by the author to be messianic prophecies, in a manner very largely consistent with his making the story up on that basis (which is one large reason why a real Jesus isn't necessary to account for the NT stories). Certainly the miracles are simply the usual tales told of cult figures in those days ─ as I remarked in another post here, Apollonius of Tyana, dated slightly later than Jesus, had nearly all of Jesus' credentials attributed to him, including preaching living for eternity and not for the world, raising the dead and other miracles, being killed by the Romans, ascending to heaven, appearing to his followers, and looking after us from above thereafter. That's simply the sort of things the recipe calls for.

The same with resurrection, which occurs all over the ancient world. In the bible alone, Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body); Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+); Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+); the man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21); Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+); and Lazarus (John 11:41-44); Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40); and Matthew gives us zombies (Matthew 27:52-53).

Elsewhere – and this is only a tiny sample – gods Osiris in Egypt and Dionysos in Greece were put to death and came back to life. In Greece, Herakles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god. Mortal Asklepios raised Lykourgos, Kapaneos and Tyndareos from the dead, and Glaukos, Hippolytos and Orion were resurrected too – as indeed was Asklepios himself. Eurydike (and Scandanavia’s Baldur) nearly made it back. Sumer’s Dumuzi and Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld.

Perhaps there's a book called 500 Favorite Recipes to Make a Holy Person.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet, the gospel say there were eyewitnesses that saw him.

So the gospels are lying about having eyewitnesses. And, lying about a empty tomb and that Jesus resurrected. It's all a lie. Sure, I can see that. But, how did Christians pull it off? That's some deception. They hid the body and spread the story of having seen Jesus alive and then seeing him ascend.

I can understand why you consider it lying, but since we do not know the reason they wrote it that way we cannot say they were lying. The definition of lying is to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. It is possible that what you said happened, that it was done with intent to deceive, but how could we prove that now?

Isn't that what Abdul Baha is saying? That the followers of Jesus were "symbolically" his body. And they, after three days, started spreading his teachings and thereby bringing life to his body.... or something like that.

No, that is not what Abdu’l-Baha was saying. He was giving a different explanation of what actually happened during those two or three days after Christ died. No when they started spreading His teachings they gave life to His Cause, not His body. His body has nothing to do with Abdu’l-Baha’s explanation.

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it."
Some Answered Questions

Okay, but what can we trust about his life and his teachings? The gospel writers made things up. He is not the miracle worker, he did not rise from the dead, and Paul says if he didn't rise from the dead that Christians are still in their sin, so Jesus did not forgive people of there sins.

My interpretation of what Paul said is that if the Cause of Christ had not been brought back to life after three days (raised from the dead), the disciples would have given up hope on Jesus. They would not have spread the gospel message and as a result people would have remained in their sins, because it is the message (the teachings of Jesus) that caused them to not sin.

You are hung up on the miracles instead of what is really important, Jesus’ life and teachings. I think you need to carefully read this chapter: 22: MIRACLES

What do we trust? The sermon on the mount? There is two versions of that. In two different locations. Who remembered exactly what was said? And then 5000 men were fed with a few fish and some bread? I don't know Trailblazer, if we start picking the gospel apart, I don't see anything worth keeping and believing in. ‘

I would trust the sermon on the mount even though there are two versions, because it is not the actual events that matter, it is what is IN the sermon.

That truth is that the resurrection is symbolically true. You good with that?

No, that is not the way I see it. The resurrection is not symbolically true because that is a contradiction, since if it was symbolic it could not also be true. It is not symbolic of anything. It just did not happen the way it is written on the NT. It happened the way Abdu’l-Baha described it above. Can you live with that? It sure makes sense to me because it conforms to reason. You are hung up on the word “symbolic” maybe because some Baha’is have told you that is what Abdu’l-Baha was offering. I am desperately trying to get you to see it differently, and you know how stubborn I can be. I never give up on people.

 

[PruePhillip]

Jesus' fame is for those who believe in a fantasy novel called Bible. Does not mean anything to me.

I don't believe Gandhi existed. Reads like a fairy tale to me.

 

[PruePhillip]

Paul knows next to nothing about an historical Jesus.

That seems super strange. Paul gave up his career and lost his
life to preach Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul actually saw
Jesus, given both were in Jerusalem.

 

[PruePhillip]

The author of Mark wrote the only bio of Jesus, and that can be mapped onto sayings taken from the Tanakh, apparently thought by the author to be messianic prophecies...

It begs the question, when Moses, Job, David et al spoke of a coming figure,
This figure clearly was important to them.
WHO WERE THEY SPEAKING OF?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't believe Gandhi existed. Reads like a fairy tale to me.

Gandhi did exist. I was a six-year old when he was killed (1948). But he is history now and a face on Indian currency till now.

That seems super strange. Paul gave up his career and lost his life to preach Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul actually saw Jesus, given both were in Jerusalem.

So many terrorists tie suicide vests around and blow themselves up for their beliefs. Paul was a leader to people who held similar views. Ego does it.
Paul is supposed to have been born after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus - Paul the Apostle (c. 5 – c. 64 or 67) - Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia.

.. coming figure, ..

Every one talks of 'coming figure' or 'have come figures'.