The Resurrection: Why does it matter?

[PruePhillip]

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

Terrorists and suicide belts have nothing to do with this story.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't this practice begin in Sri
Lanka with the Tamil Tigers?
I would have thought that Paul and Jesus were about the same
age. Not that it matters - we are supposed to study Paul's words,
not his birthdays.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. we are supposed to study Paul's words, not his birthdays.

IMHO, there are better things to study.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Paul says out loud that he never met Jesus eg Galatians 1:12 where he says that everything he knows about Jesus came to him in visions (which means that everything Paul says about Jesus has no other source than his own head).

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?

Set out the quotes and we'll see if we can work it out.

Meanwhile, two things we know for sure ─ Jesus doesn't qualify as a Jewish messiah, and Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh.


When are you going to get back to me with your views on the supernatural, by the way?

 

[PruePhillip]

Paul says out loud that he never met Jesus eg Galatians 1:12 where he says that everything he knows about Jesus came to him in visions (which means that everything Paul says about Jesus has no other source than his own head).
Set out the quotes and we'll see if we can work it out.

Meanwhile, two things we know for sure ─ Jesus doesn't qualify as a Jewish messiah, and Jesus is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh.


When are you going to get back to me with your views on the supernatural, by the way?

That's interesting about Paul not meeting Jesus. Wonder why? The man was well known
to the Jewish religious establishment.
Yes, Jesus isn't mentioned in the Jewish bible, not as the name Jesus anyhow. But we
know who He is. Daniel 9:26 calls him the Messiah, the Annointed One, the Chosen One
etc..Look it up in Biblehub. All down to translations - and even the oldest Jewish texts
might not get it right.

The Messiah will be destroyed by the nation that will destroy the temple and the nation.
The Messiah will die for his people, not for Himself. Vengeance is determined against
the nation.
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the
people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end
thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

The Jews take offense at these verses. Their Messiah does not die for the people,
regardless of what their bible says. If some Jew says the Messiah cannot be cut off then
are you going to accept his POV simply because he's a Jew? How does he explain how
he HIMSELF was cut off for 2,000 years?

 

[blü 2]

Daniel 9:26 calls him the Messiah, the Annointed One, the Chosen One
etc..Look it up in Biblehub.

This is exactly where a clear statement of your views on the supernatural would be very clarifying. I'm not interested in the traditions that the faithful draw on, only in what's documented and how.

The Messiah will be destroyed by the nation that will destroy the temple and the nation.

Please provide citations for each example you propose. It's the original text that matters, not paraphrases.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bahais too believe in Allah of Abraham. You too are a sect of Jews, Christians and Muslims, successively. You believe in manifestation of Allah as Moses, as Jesus and as Mohammad. You do not believe in the multiplicity of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism, and Buddhism has no God. You are no different from other Abrahamic religions. Ahmadiyyas accept that.

We believe the original foundation of all religions is one and they receive their inspiration from the same Source but use different terminology.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.


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

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?

I believe God uses many people to help prepare humanity for its ultimate destiny of unity and peace. Creating harmony and a new world cannot be accomplished by Baha’is alone. It requires all people who are well wishers of humanity to work together for a better world. We spread the idea of the oneness of humanity and trust that humanity will eventually accept its common foundation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If Allah wanted peace and harmony, he would not have made a world like this, and he would not have sent manifestations after manifestations. Clearly, Allah wants conflict.

We believe the original foundation of all religions is one and they receive their inspiration from the same Source but use different terminology.

Cannot be, because Hindus believe in thousand Gods and Goddesses and Buddhists in none (Well, there are Hindus too who believe in none).

 

[PruePhillip]

This is exactly where a clear statement of your views on the supernatural would be very clarifying. I'm not interested in the traditions that the faithful draw on, only in what's documented and how.
Please provide citations for each example you propose. It's the original text that matters, not paraphrases.

Gave you the reference
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

Not interested in trying to date these things - too ambiguous.
and AD70 was just the first of three wars. The last war ended Jewish occupation
of Israel.

Messiah - Jesus
cut off - killed
not for himself - died for others
people of the prince - Rome (Titus was the prince to Emperor Vespasian)
destroy the city - end of Jerusalem, as Jesus and OT writers foretold
and the sanctuary - destruction of the temple (not just violated as with the Greeks)
be with a flood - Rome and her ancillaries flooded into Israel in enormous numbers
desolations are determined - God was determined to destroy, and even
Josephus recognized this.


As for clarifying supernatural views. Don't have a systematic definition. I guess these
are events/phenomena with no natural cause.
There exists just one of these in the natural world - the Big Bang.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

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.

So the gospels are lying about having eyewitnesses. And, lying about a empty tomb and that Jesus resurrected.

So why does the resurrection matter? It matters to the Christians that take the Bible and the NT very literal and believe it is the infallible Word of God. To others why would it matter?
You say Jesus did not come back to life. Is that the official Baha'i belief? Because the NT say they had eyewitnesses to the event. If it didn't happen, then are those eyewitnesses lying?

So if the gospel writers knew it was false but wrote it as if true, then they would be lying also. But, since we don't know that, then what? Jesus didn't come back to life after three days, but the gospel writers thought he did and wrote about it as if he had? Then what, they passed on a false story?

So finally, we get to the alleged empty tomb. Was it empty? Or, did the supposed witnesses lie about it? If it was empty and the witnesses truly saw it empty, where did the body of Jesus go? Supposedly some angels told them that Jesus was not there, that he had risen. If Jesus did not come back to life, were they lying? Or, were the witnesses lying about having seen angels?

Anyway, I'm glad why you can understand that if it didn't really happen, that I suspect all of these people, the disciples, Mary and the other women, and the gospel writers to all have been in on a great big hoax. Next, let's try to make sense of what Baha'is think happened.

 

[blü 2]

Gave you the reference
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood,
and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

The reference, the reference! WHERE does it say that?

As for clarifying supernatural views. Don't have a systematic definition. I guess these are events/phenomena with no natural cause.

What test will let us distinguish between something that doesn't have a natural cause, and something that has a natural cause that we haven't found yet?

What test will distinguish between something from outside of nature (ie outside of objective reality) and something imaginary?

 

[PruePhillip]

The reference, the reference! WHERE does it say that?
What test will let us distinguish between something that doesn't have a natural cause, and something that has a natural cause that we haven't found yet?

What test will distinguish between something from outside of nature (ie outside of objective reality) and something imaginary?

Thought I gave it, Daniel 9:26.
there are similar verses throughout the Old Testament

Answer other point later. Here you are getting into philosophy, because,
essentially, we don't know if anything is real.

 

[CG Didymus]

“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

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.

Abdul Baha says: "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..." Why did the disciples become "assured and steadfast" after three days?

Can you comment on these quotes I found. Thanks.

The Real Resurrection of Jesus from Baha'iteachings.org
But what does Paul mean when he says Christ “was seen,” or as the New International Version translates “appeared”? Can we understand this literally, when we have seen that Paul often uses physical imagery for spiritual (i.e. nonphysical) events? Could Paul understand the resurrection another, more metaphorical or symbolic way?

UHJ and The Resurrection and Return of Jesus
...'s friends regard the Resurrection of Christ and His Ascension into heaven as physical events involving His physical body, whereas the Bahá’í writings explain that these accounts should be interpreted symbolically.

the idea of a physical body descending to the heart of the earth, or ascending beyond the stratosphere (except in a spaceship) is a ridiculous impossibility. The Bahá’í teachings make it clear, however, that even though we cannot accept these accounts as literally true, this does not lessen the truth or importance of the spiritual realities that they convey.

Pilgrims have recorded in their notes oral statements made by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi to the effect that the disciples hid the body of Christ by burying it under the wall of Jerusalem, and that it is now under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The House of Justice knows of nothing in the Writings of the Faith, however, explicitly confirming these statements

 

[Trailblazer]

So why does the resurrection matter? It matters to the Christians that take the Bible and the NT very literal and believe it is the infallible Word of God. To others why would it matter?

Obviously it matters to Christians but it seems to matter to atheists as well; either that or they just like talking about things that do not matter to them. Or maybe they only talk about it to try to disprove it.

You say Jesus did not come back to life. Is that the official Baha'i belief? Because the NT say they had eyewitnesses to the event. If it didn't happen, then are those eyewitnesses lying?
It is the official Baha'i belief because of what Abdu'l-Baha said but that does not mean that Baha'is cannot believe that Jesus rose from the dead if they want to. There are no "thought police" in the Baha'i Faith.

If anyone was lying, it was not the eyewitnesses, it was the gospel writers. It is more likely that the gospel writers wrote a fictitious story than that the eyewitnesses lied to the gospel writers, saying they saw Jesus after he rose.

So if the gospel writers knew it was false but wrote it as if true, then they would be lying also. But, since we don't know that, then what? Jesus didn't come back to life after three days, but the gospel writers thought he did and wrote about it as if he had? Then what, they passed on a false story?

I think that if anything, the gospel writers made up stories and the witnesses were just characters in the stories. Think about it. Some of those characters might have existed as real people, but they were not real in the stories, they were part of the plot.
Since we don't know, we can either choose to believe anyway or we can say it was just stories men wrote. Eventually, you have to pick a side, Mr. Undecided.

So finally, we get to the alleged empty tomb. Was it empty? Or, did the supposed witnesses lie about it? If it was empty and the witnesses truly saw it empty, where did the body of Jesus go? Supposedly some angels told them that Jesus was not there, that he had risen. If Jesus did not come back to life, were they lying? Or, were the witnesses lying about having seen angels?

All part of the story, as far as I am concerned.

Anyway, I'm glad why you can understand that if it didn't really happen, that I suspect all of these people, the disciples, Mary and the other women, and the gospel writers to all have been in on a great big hoax. Next, let's try to make sense of what Baha'is think happened.

Well, the official position is what Abdu'l-Baha said happened, but I don't know if some Baha'is have other ideas.
I am very logical, so for me it is either true (a) Jesus rose from the dead, or false (b) Jesus did not rise from the dead.
I choose (b). But there is still no way to know why the stories were written as if it happened. God knows but I don't think anyone else knows.

 

[Trailblazer]

Abdul Baha says: "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..." Why did the disciples become "assured and steadfast" after three days?

Can you comment on these quotes I found. Thanks.

The Real Resurrection of Jesus from Baha'iteachings.org
But what does Paul mean when he says Christ “was seen,” or as the New International Version translates “appeared”? Can we understand this literally, when we have seen that Paul often uses physical imagery for spiritual (i.e. nonphysical) events? Could Paul understand the resurrection another, more metaphorical or symbolic way?

UHJ and The Resurrection and Return of Jesus
...'s friends regard the Resurrection of Christ and His Ascension into heaven as physical events involving His physical body, whereas the Bahá’í writings explain that these accounts should be interpreted symbolically.

the idea of a physical body descending to the heart of the earth, or ascending beyond the stratosphere (except in a spaceship) is a ridiculous impossibility. The Bahá’í teachings make it clear, however, that even though we cannot accept these accounts as literally true, this does not lessen the truth or importance of the spiritual realities that they convey.

Pilgrims have recorded in their notes oral statements made by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi to the effect that the disciples hid the body of Christ by burying it under the wall of Jerusalem, and that it is now under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The House of Justice knows of nothing in the Writings of the Faith, however, explicitly confirming these statements

Thanks, I never heard these before. I think they are saying that Paul understood the resurrection is a spiritual way, not a literal way. The UHJ is saying these events had to be symbolic because they could not have been literal. If the body was hidden then someone had an agenda, and in this case one cannot blame the gospel writers unless they knew that someone hid the body, in which case they lied in the gospels. If the body is under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre I sure wish they would find it, but how could they ever prove it was Jesus? I sure wish they could prove it because it would end all of this talk. On the other hand, I think many Christians would still believe that Jesus rose even it it could be proven He was buried somewhere. That is the nature of belief.

 

[lukethethird]

The Resurrection: Why does it matter?
We get a paid long weekend, that's all that matters.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe God uses many people to help prepare humanity for its ultimate destiny of unity and peace. Creating harmony and a new world cannot be accomplished by Baha’is alone. It requires all people who are well wishers of humanity to work together for a better world. We spread the idea of the oneness of humanity and trust that humanity will eventually accept its common foundation.

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?

Could you comment on this last part of my post?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well, the official position is what Abdu'l-Baha said happened, but I don't know if some Baha'is have other ideas.
I am very logical, so for me it is either true (a) Jesus rose from the dead, or false (b) Jesus did not rise from the dead.
I choose (b). But there is still no way to know why the stories were written as if it happened. God knows but I don't think anyone else knows.

I keep arguing with other Baha'is that if it didn't really happen then it is a myth. For some reason, they don't like using that word. It is from that that I get it is true, but only symbolically. Like you say, that's contradictory. But I think what they are saying is that the spiritual message in the phony, made-up fictional, mythical story is true. Of course they leave out the phony, made-up and mythical part. It's like one Baha'i used a symbolic explanation for the healings. He said that Lazarus was "spiritually" dead and when he accepted Jesus he became "spiritually" alive. That doesn't follow the gospel story. Just like a symbolic, spiritual interpretation doesn't follow the resurrection story.

I can agree with literalist Christians and believe that God could do it. I can see how if God did raise Jesus from the dead Jesus is superior to any other prophet... and, if we're going to believe that, then we might as well through in that Jesus is God too. But what I hate about that is then I have to believe in a literal heaven and hell, in Satan, a Flood, the sun stopping in the sky, a 6 day Creation and all the rest of those literalist Christian beliefs. I truly hope that is not the truth.

Problem for Baha'is... how to make the Jewish Bible, the NT and the Scriptures of all the other religions true and from the same one God but still get rid of things in those religions that contradict what the Baha'i Faith says is true? Creation, the flood, the resurrection? Not literal but symbolic? Jesus is God and Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken to be sacrificed? People added in things and came up with interpretations and tradition that were not in the original message from the messenger? Those are all tough to try and "prove" and, as you run into all the time, they are pretty much unprovable.

For me, the simplest explanation is to say that it is all religious myth. Apocryphal Christian writings have all sorts of weird miraculous things going on. In one story Peter flies. But people fly in the Bible too. Heck, if people today believe these things really happened, then how about people 2000 years ago? Like I say, all the other religions at the time had God/men that died and came back to life or floated off to heaven. They had devils and demons fighting with the good Gods. So why not add in similar miraculous behavior for Jesus? Especially since the Jewish Bible already had Enoch and Elijah be taken up into heaven without dying. They already had angels appearing as if they were human but then disappearing. What would the gospels be without Jesus doing all the things they say he did? I know Baha'is like to say it is his teachings that are important. But we don't know how accurate are those teachings? Are they embellished too? Or, totally made up? Like the story about Jesus with Pontius Pilate, the disciples weren't there. Where did the gospel writers get the details of the conversation?

Like you say it's just a story, but what a story. And the main thing Christians got going for them... if the story wasn't true, how could it have changed the world like it did? And, the greatest part of the story is the resurrection. If it ain't true, the Christian myth ain't all that impressive. And again, the problem for Baha'is is to keep Jesus and Christianity meaningful and important without the resurrection being literally true. For me, that makes it a false religion with nothing but a bunch of superstitious beliefs.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Could you comment on this last part of my post?

Hi CG. I wish you a Happy New Year and New Decade?

I’ll do my best to get as accurate information as is available.

Adam is regarded as the father of humankind by the Quran and Bible and by Baha’is as the first ‘known’ Manifestation of God although Baha’u’llah states there have always been Manifestations. No known religion.

Noah is regarded as a Prophet in both the Bible and Quran and by Baha’is as a Manifestation (Prophet) Called people to God but no known religion.

Abraham a Patriarch in the Bible, a Prophet in the Quran and to Baha’is a Manifestation of God. No known religion but through His descendants Judaism, Islam, the Babi and Baha’i Faiths were born.

Moses A Manifestation of God Who founded Judaism and wrote the Torah.

All these Prophets we believe are part of the one same Faith so at that time Judaism was unfolding progressively but Moses we believe was Judaism’s Founder.

Jainism Founded by Mahavira. Has many teachings similar to Hinduism and Buddhism. Believes in God as a Being but not creator. Believes in reincarnation and Ahimsa (non violence) Mahavira would be viewed as a great religious teacher although not a Manifestation of God as many of His teachings are praiseworthy and of benefit to society.

Sikhism Also considered a great religious teacher and saint who emphasised unity of religion and whom the Universal House of Justice has written.....

... the Universal House of Justice states that He was

"inspired to reconcile the religions of Hinduism and Islám, the followers of which religions had been in violent conflict.... The Bahá'ís thus view Guru Nanak as a 'saint of the highest order' ".

1. ↑ Letter dated 27th October, 1985 to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of India

Hope this helps.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's like one Baha'i used a symbolic explanation for the healings. He said that Lazarus was "spiritually" dead and when he accepted Jesus he became "spiritually" alive. That doesn't follow the gospel story. Just like a symbolic, spiritual interpretation doesn't follow the resurrection story.

The spiritual interpretation does follow the resurrection story. Of course, I believe that the part about the tomb and Mary and Martha is just part of the story that was necessary in order to get to the final punch line in John 11:25-26.

I Am the Resurrection and the Life

17 So when Jesus came, He found that he had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles[a] away. 19 And many of the Jews had joined the women around Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother.

20 Now Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met Him, but Mary was sitting in the house. 21 Now Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.”

Jesus did not say that the body of Lazarus would rise again. He said rise: 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Then apparently Martha assumed Jesus meant the body: 24 Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

Then Jesus said that He was the resurrection and the life and that whoever believes in Him will never die. He was talking about the eternal life of the soul, NOT the eternal life of the physical body.

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

Then Martha said Yes, I believe in you Jesus: 27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

The following verses are congruent with John 11:25-26 and they refer to the eternal life of the soul, not the eternal life of the body.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

I can agree with literalist Christians and believe that God could do it.

It is irrelevant to me if God could do it because I certainly do not believe that God would do it. There is no REASON to do it and every reason NOT to do it. One reason NOT to do it is because it was totally unnecessary and another reason NOT to do it is because it led people away from the real Jesus and His teachings since Christians worship the resurrected a physical body of Jesus, NOT what Jesus stood for or what He taught. Every time I think about the bodily resurrection, it makes me really, really sick.

I can see how if God did raise Jesus from the dead Jesus is superior to any other prophet... and, if we're going to believe that, then we might as well through in that Jesus is God too.

Even if God raised Jesus from the dead that would not mean Jesus would be superior to any other prophet. It would be the same as the virgin birth, something God decided to do. The virgin birth does not make Jesus superior either.

The main point I want to make, which is the SAME point other Baha’is make, is that the body of Jesus is not important AT ALL because it is just a body. Jesus made this point perfectly clear, yet it flies right over the heads of Christians.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Where did Jesus EVER talk about rising from the grave? Jesus said to let the dead bury their dead. Being born of the spirit has nothing to do with the body. It means spiritual awakening, exactly the same thing that Baha’u’llah wrote about:

“Incline your ears to the sweet melody of this Prisoner. Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remainethdead, shall never live.” Gleanings, p. 213

How can anyone possibly believe this refers to the death of a physical body? Obviously this is symbolic language.

Moreover, according to Baha’i beliefs, the soul is the person and it does not need a body to exist. The soul will take on a spiritual body in the spiritual world, but there will be NO NEED for a physical body there.

But what I hate about that is then I have to believe in a literal heaven and hell, in Satan, a Flood, the sun stopping in the sky, a 6 day Creation and all the rest of those literalist Christian beliefs. I truly hope that is not the truth. .

So you are still Undecided? I guess those gospel stories were really convincing.

I know Baha'is like to say it is his teachings that are important. But we don't know how accurate are those teachings? Are they embellished too? Or, totally made up? Like the story about Jesus with Pontius Pilate, the disciples weren't there. Where did the gospel writers get the details of the conversation? .

I agree that it is the teachings of Jesus that are important, and they stand on their own merit, especially because they are the same spiritual teachings that are found in all the religions. That is verification.

Like you say it's just a story, but what a story. And the main thing Christians got going for them... if the story wasn't true, how could it have changed the world like it did.

The resurrection story did not change the world at all. The teachings of Jesus changed the world. The resurrection IS NOT the main thing the Christians have going for them,they just “believe” it is;since they have made the teachings of Jesus secondary, it is all they have left, worship of a physical body. How very sad.

And, the greatest part of the story is the resurrection. If it ain't true, the Christian myth ain't all that impressive..

I guess you have really been taken in by the stories, even though the resurrection stories in the gospels contradict each other, as atheists and skeptics on this forum have clearly pointed out.

And again, the problem for Baha'is is to keep Jesus and Christianity meaningful and important without the resurrection being literally true. For me, that makes it a false religion with nothing but a bunch of superstitious beliefs. .

We Baha’is do not believe that there is anything meaningful or important about the bodily resurrection because we believe that the soul is who we are, not the body.

No, Christianity is a true religion with many beautiful teachings... For example:

Matthew 7:24-27 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”