What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

[loverofhumanity]

Another thing is that if all these happenings were literal then dead bodies rising out of graves would have been an event which could not have gone unnoticed by the entire population at the time, yet there is no record of such a happening.

I still believe it was a ‘vision’ not seen in the physical world.but similar to Mount Tabor.

 

[sealchan]

Without knowing the identities of the authors it's hard to surmise what their true intents were. Each may have had different intents and scholars now believe that some of the gospels--one in the least, John's gospel--was written by several men as indicated by the changes in style from one chapter to the next. The story of the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in any manuscripts until roughly the 8th century. Personally, I think the authors as a collective group were trying to get the new Christianity movement off the ground and as each gospel came along the new authors added more and more flourishes and supernatural events to make it more fantastic than the last. This is why we see Jesus growing from a mighty prophet in Mark to a demi-god in Matthew and Luke to full god in John. This may have been an attempt to attract pagans who didn't want to worship a prophet, they wanted an actual god, so the writers of John gave them them one.

I recently finished watching recordings of Bart Ehrman on this...

 

[CG Didymus]

The problem with the belief in a physical resurrection is that it could never have happened nor dead bodies rise from graves according to science and reason.

And which parts of the Bible fit in with the science and reason today? So how much is going to be rejected as not being literal? For me, I'm okay with a person that rejects all of it and just tries to get some "spiritual" truths out it. Which makes the stories fictional but not necessarily "allegorical" like Baha'is claim.

Believing in a physical resurrection evokes attitudes of exclusiveness and superiority in people, reasons for condemning other religions as being false because their Prophets are buried whereas Christ’s is nowhere to be found.

As I recall, the God of Israel made the Israelites his chosen people and had them kill people that followed other Gods. Then no where in the NT did it make it sound like all people and religions are one. Only those that believed and followed Jesus were the "children" of God. Do you have some Bible verses that say otherwise?

Another thing is that if all these happenings were literal then dead bodies rising out of graves would have been an event which could not have gone unnoticed by the entire population at the time, yet there is no record of such a happening.

I still believe it was a ‘vision’ not seen in the physical world.but similar to Mount Tabor.

Matt. 27:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Acts 1:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
​

Unfortunately for me, the Baha'i explanation is only an attempt to make the gospel story true, in a spiritual way, but not true in a literal, physical way. And not that I believe it happened. But, to me, the writers go out of their way to say that many people witnessed the events. So no non-Christian record and it doesn't make scientific sense, for me, the easiest explanation... They make it up. It was written way later, so who was going to concrete evidence that it didn't happen? All we'd have is the words of supposed "eyewitnesses" that were still alive.

 

[loverofhumanity]

And which parts of the Bible fit in with the science and reason today? So how much is going to be rejected as not being literal? For me, I'm okay with a person that rejects all of it and just tries to get some "spiritual" truths out it. Which makes the stories fictional but not necessarily "allegorical" like Baha'is claim.

As I recall, the God of Israel made the Israelites his chosen people and had them kill people that followed other Gods. Then no where in the NT did it make it sound like all people and religions are one. Only those that believed and followed Jesus were the "children" of God. Do you have some Bible verses that say otherwise?

Matt. 27:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Acts 1:50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
​

Unfortunately for me, the Baha'i explanation is only an attempt to make the gospel story true, in a spiritual way, but not true in a literal, physical way. And not that I believe it happened. But, to me, the writers go out of their way to say that many people witnessed the events. So no non-Christian record and it doesn't make scientific sense, for me, the easiest explanation... They make it up. It was written way later, so who was going to concrete evidence that it didn't happen? All we'd have is the words of supposed "eyewitnesses" that were still alive.

Hi CG. Got your covid shot yet? We’re still waiting.

I believe that the message Christ came to bring was one of love and unity. Love thy neighbour and even thine enemy. (That includes other religionists)

Unfortunately focus seems to have shifted from this message of love onto the miraculous and superstitious with arrogant assertions of superiority and supremacy, against the spirit of humility Christ taught.

I believe that the Gospel writers were divinely inspired to write what they did according to God’s purpose for future generations. Baha’u’llah states that such verses have been revealed in such a manner as a test to distinguish the sincere from the insincere.

He states that the sincere will always be willing to listen to the new Manifestation, whereas those with a spiritual disease will cling to one or two passages of their texts and claim He is an imposter. So some cling to those verses which reinforce supremacy while others cling to the true message of love Christ brought and lovingly accept the new Manifestation.

So do these verses test believers and distinguish the sheep from the goats.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't see it that way, because the gospel writers made it clear when Jesus was saying one of his parables. They were writing as if it was an accurate, historical account of what Jesus said and did. I'd call taking the Bible and the NT literally as an extreme belief. Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish and surviving for 3 days? Fire coming down from heaven for Elijah's sacrifice? Samson loses his strength when his hair is cut? Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt? Allegories or embellishments?

I see the Gospel accounts as being carefully crafted religious narratives that quite consciously consider the needs of the Church in the decades after Christ’s crucifixion. They are carefully written presenting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, the bearer of a new Covenant and Teachings from God. The Gospel of Matthew makes over sixty references to the Hebrew Bible. Every aspect of the Gospel accounts is imbued with meanings that are both obvious and subtle from the nativity narratives to the resurrection. So I don’t see the author’s sole purpose to create an historical document, rather an account that will encourage and inspire some of the early Churches. We know many of the stories you refer are not literal so while the stories may have been written as if they actually happened, their true purpose was to provide spiritual sustenance for their intended audiences.

Then the NT, God speaks from heaven? Jesus turns into a radiant shining light?
Matt. 17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus... 5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”... 9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
And here we have Jesus, supposedly, saying he will be raised from the dead. And later in the same chapter says...
22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.
23 They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.”
Sorry, but it reads like they are telling about the things that actual happened and the things that Jesus told them. Since it wasn't written until way later, and as if any of the writers were really there and heard and saw these things for themselves, and, even if they did, that they remembered everything perfectly? Then I would imagine there was a good chance they embellished the story. But were they smart enough to tell a story that was really an allegory? That when they said that Jesus rose from the dead, they really meant that his followers, the symbolic body of Christ, came to "spiritual" life and started living and teaching the principles that Jesus had taught them? If that's good enough for Baha'is, then fine.

The Gospel writers were definitely smart enough to write allegorical stories. I don’t see any problem but appreciate you have a different perspective.

For me, I think that's too complicated. Other religions had miracles and people coming back to life. They had battles between good gods and evil demon gods. They had a hell and a paradise. So, I don't know for sure, but I'd have absolutely no problem believing the gospel writers threw in some of these things from these other religions. But, I don't see how the Christians could have pulled off the hoax of the empty tomb. Do you still believe they could have taken the body and hidden it? Then, not one of them, while being threatened with torture and death, confessing?

Christianity isn’t any old religion. Its endured and flourished over two millennia, has been the greatest influence of Western Civilisation and isn’t going away any time soon. So it would probably be a mistake to compare it to indigenous or folk religions. The written texts are an essential part of what sets Judaism, Christianity and Islam from other faiths.

But still, let's say they hid the body. Then what? They spread the rumor that they had seen Jesus alive? Then the gospel writers wrote it down and said that there were many eyewitnesses that saw Jesus alive? Then that story is based on a lie. It isn't "allegorical". They are still telling the story as if Jesus really had come back to life.

We don’t know what happened to the body of Jesus any more than we know what happened to the body of most people who lived two thousand years ago. We can’t even be certain any of the Gospel writers were eye witness accounts and they are the only records of what happened. Not even Paul was present.

So we got... It really did happen and they were reporting the things as they actually happened. Jesus did come back to life, but some of the things didn't happen. They were embellishments added in. Or, Jesus died and they hid the body and made up the story about him coming back to life. Or, they wrote the story as if Jesus had come back to life, but it was all an allegorized parable that was not meant to be taken literally. You know, I don't like any of them. That he came back to life... appeared and disappeared. Had a body of flesh and bone, and then floated off into the sky? Doubtful. That he did come back to life, but some of the details were just embellishments? Still coming back to life, if that really happened, is great enough. Who cares if the other things, the earthquakes and people coming out of their graves, didn't really happen. But, even that one thing is totally and completely unbelievable. So was that made up?

Jesus really did return from the dead, spoke to His Disciples, encouraged them and ascended to heaven. It just didn’t happen in the literal way that some would understand the Gospels.

So Jesus died. Then what? Were their guards at tomb? Was their even a special tomb? Or did the disciples already have his body? If not, who stole it? How did they do it? How many of the disciples knew? How long after they hid the body did they start making claims that Jesus had come back to life and was seen by Mary and some of the others? So were they in on it? Then when Jesus supposedly appeared to all the disciples, were they in on it? Anyway, were they smart enough to pull off such a hoax and keep a straight face when they told others that Jesus had risen from the dead?

It was obviously a convincing story for many who have believed.

Then the allegorical explanation... For those that don't know, here is Abdul Baha's Baha'is 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.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended 105 the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.

Works for me but I appreciate it doesn’t work for you.

Actually, I just thought of another possibility. The story about the resurrection was made up. There were lots legends and traditions of Jesus that were being told. Then gospels started to get written. The 4 gospels got canonized. The rest were rejected. So the official story was that Jesus came back to life. The tomb was empty. He appeared to many, then ascended into heaven. But the Jews and the Romans didn't care. I guess even with that, someone would have thought that they better hide the body just in case anyone really cared enough to check. Only problem, to me, it makes both Christianity and the Baha'i Faith false religions. The Baha'i Faith, because they say that Christianity is a true religion, when, if the story was made up, it was not. What a mess. What else can you add Adrian to the Baha'i explanation?

Eventually a lawyer must conclude his case and leave it a jury and judge to decide. Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary, born the Son of God, baptised, crucified, resurrected and then He ascended to heaven. He said He would Return. It is that simple.

 

[firedragon]

Another thing is that if all these happenings were literal then dead bodies rising out of graves would have been an event which could not have gone unnoticed by the entire population at the time, yet there is no record of such a happening.

I still believe it was a ‘vision’ not seen in the physical world.but similar to Mount Tabor.

How do you assess which one is "literal" and which one is "a vision"?

1. Anything that sounds magical and unnatural is "a vision"?
2. Also, a vision should have some purpose right? So what is the purpose of the zombie episode and even maybe the pigs running to the river episode?

 

[loverofhumanity]

How do you assess which one is "literal" and which one is "a vision"?

1. Anything that sounds magical and unnatural is "a vision"?
2. Also, a vision should have some purpose right? So what is the purpose of the zombie episode and even maybe the pigs running to the river episode?

I think when something is against science and reason then it should be examined from different angles. And there are precedents in the Gospels such as the vision on Mount Tabor where Christ became transfigured and Moses and Elias spoke with Him.

Afterwards Jesus said to the disciples to “tell the vision to no man”. Yet although it seemed ‘real’ to the disciples it was a vision. The resurrection I believe was in a similar vein.

 

[firedragon]

I think when something is against science and reason then it should be examined from different angles. And there are precedents in the Gospels such as the vision on Mount Tabor where Christ became transfigured and Moses and Elias spoke with Him.

Anything against science is a vision?

Afterwards Jesus said to the disciples to “tell the vision to no man”. Yet although it seemed ‘real’ to the disciples it was a vision. The resurrection I believe was in a similar vein.

After the Zombie episode Jesus said to not tell the vision to no man?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Anything against science is a vision?



After the Zombie episode Jesus said to not tell the vision to no man?

Im just saying that there are other meanings that are in accord with science and reason.

There are beliefs that on the day of resurrection, the dead will rise out of their graves. As the Holy Books are spiritual books could this not mean the spiritually dead will be raised to the life of belief? Such an understanding is in harmony with reason and science. Religion without science and reason, I believe, descends into superstition. Just my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Im just saying that there are other meanings that are in accord with science and reason.

There are beliefs that on the day of resurrection, the dead will rise out of their graves. As the Holy Books are spiritual books could this not mean the spiritually dead will be raised to the life of belief? Such an understanding is in harmony with reason and science. Religion without science and reason, I believe, descends into superstition. Just my opinion.

Alright. Lets leave that.

Where does it quote Jesus as saying "Dont tell this vision to no one"?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Alright. Lets leave that.

Where does it quote Jesus as saying "Dont tell this vision to no one"?

Matthew 17:9

 

[Inquire of God]

The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

The Resurrection of the Lord is recorded because it is a part of the Atoning Sacrifice. The Atoning Sacrifice has seven elements that only God Himself could perform, no man and no holy prophet was capable of completing any of these tasks.
They are: 1) The taking upon Himself the suffering of all created beings. 2) Enduring the vicious aspects of man trying to kill Him unsuccessfully. 3) Voluntarily allowing Himself to die. 4) Resurrecting in His body after allowing it to expire. 5) Resurrecting others who were righteous souls after His resurrection. 6) Showing His resurrected body as proof of the actual incident. 7) Rising to Heaven under His own power.
No other man or being has ever come close to doing what the Lord did in His Atoning Sacrifice, He is God. Because of His resurrection He has power over resurrection for all other beings. We shall all be resurrected by Him and brought to stand before Him for judgment.
When this happens all doubting and disbelief will vanish, until then people are free to say what they want and to work out what type of salvation they will eventually receive.
When we finally come to KNOW His absolute glory it will be too late, our repentance and conversion MUST have taken place before that.

 

[firedragon]

Matthew 17:9

Bro. That he said to Peter, James and John on that mountain when Gods voice spoke through some cloud and called him beloved son of mine. Not about the Zombie apocalypse. Irrelevant.

Anyway, you think that God did not speak to Jesus in this Matthew episode? It was just a vision? It did not occur? Just like the Zombie apocalypse?

Hmm.

You must respond to the question "what was the purpose of the vision of the Zombie apocalypse" which I asked because you called it a vision.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Bro. That he said to Peter, James and John on that mountain when Gods voice spoke through some cloud and called him beloved son of mine. Not about the Zombie apocalypse. Irrelevant.

Anyway, you think that God did not speak to Jesus in this Matthew episode? It was just a vision? It did not occur? Just like the Zombie apocalypse?

Hmm.

You must respond to the question "what was the purpose of the vision of the Zombie apocalypse" which I asked because you called it a vision.

Yes it happened but spiritually.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Gospel writers were definitely smart enough to write allegorical stories.

All four of them? What about the gospels that didn't make it into the NT? Were they "allegorical" stories or made up, embellished things? Like Jesus making clay birds come to life? Oops, I guess that really happened because it is in the Quran? So, still, legends and traditions about Jesus most certainly were developed, then the gospels writers put together their stories about Jesus. I don't think they would add their own parables into the stories. And the parables of Jesus aren't that difficult to distinguish between things that, supposedly, really happened and which were just stories Jesus was telling. Especially that they'd be trying to be historically accurate about Jesus being crucified, then go into an "allegorical" story about Jesus coming back to life. And we, most of us anyway, know that they weren't "historically" accurate about the details about the crucifixion. Like the dead people coming out of their graves. So is that a "parable" thrown into the middle of the crucifixion story or a made up mythical thing added in?

Jesus really did return from the dead, spoke to His Disciples, encouraged them and ascended to heaven. It just didn’t happen in the literal way that some would understand the Gospels.

Yet, the writers go out of their way to make it sound like they are reporting true events and say that their were witnesses that saw him alive and that he was touched and found to have flesh and bone. So I still go with... if it didn't really happen, that the writers made it up and wrote the story as if it really happened. I don't see how or why they would not just say that they all saw the spirit of Jesus, if that is what really happened.

I think when something is against science and reason then it should be examined from different angles.

First, I'm on some list somewhere for the vaccine, but nothing yet. And now, science and reason of the people in Jesus' time? Was what? Science and reason doesn't even work today against those that want to believe the Bible literally. And I have a comment on the "exclusivity" thing. I'm always asking Baha'is which religion, other than the Baha'i Faith, right now, teachers and practices the exact real truth from God? Is there any other one other than just the Baha'i Faith? Buddhists? Mormons? Sikhs? Jains? Hindus? At least Baha'is don't call them false. They just think that each one of them is teaching false things. Or, am I wrong?

Anyway, the resurrection... so let's say that the spirit within the body lives on. The body turns back into dust. Would it have been that hard for Jesus to just make that clear? But then, what does science and reason do about the spirits of people? Has science proven that all people have one? But then what about other creatures? They just die and are gone forever?

Then next, a baby starts to grow... where does the spirit come from? Is it made in the spirit world at that time or is there a storehouse of ready made spirits waiting for a human to be born? Then the person dies and the spirit goes off to some spiritual world. Why couldn't that same spirit be assigned to another human body? Or, the spirit is up in the spirit world and God puts their old physical body back together and sends the spirit back into it? I think all those things are possible for God. And something like those things are taught by different religions. But Baha'is reject the reincarnation and resurrection options. So were those religions wrong? Did they misunderstand their prophet? Did they add those teachings into their religion? Or, were the Scriptures in all those religions that talk about reincarnation and resurrection... all "allegorical"? Anyway thanks Loverofhumanity, you're still my favorite Baha'i, with Adrian running a close second.

 

[loverofhumanity]

All four of them? What about the gospels that didn't make it into the NT? Were they "allegorical" stories or made up, embellished things? Like Jesus making clay birds come to life? Oops, I guess that really happened because it is in the Quran? So, still, legends and traditions about Jesus most certainly were developed, then the gospels writers put together their stories about Jesus. I don't think they would add their own parables into the stories. And the parables of Jesus aren't that difficult to distinguish between things that, supposedly, really happened and which were just stories Jesus was telling. Especially that they'd be trying to be historically accurate about Jesus being crucified, then go into an "allegorical" story about Jesus coming back to life. And we, most of us anyway, know that they weren't "historically" accurate about the details about the crucifixion. Like the dead people coming out of their graves. So is that a "parable" thrown into the middle of the crucifixion story or a made up mythical thing added in?

Yet, the writers go out of their way to make it sound like they are reporting true events and say that their were witnesses that saw him alive and that he was touched and found to have flesh and bone. So I still go with... if it didn't really happen, that the writers made it up and wrote the story as if it really happened. I don't see how or why they would not just say that they all saw the spirit of Jesus, if that is what really happened.

First, I'm on some list somewhere for the vaccine, but nothing yet. And now, science and reason of the people in Jesus' time? Was what? Science and reason doesn't even work today against those that want to believe the Bible literally. And I have a comment on the "exclusivity" thing. I'm always asking Baha'is which religion, other than the Baha'i Faith, right now, teachers and practices the exact real truth from God? Is there any other one other than just the Baha'i Faith? Buddhists? Mormons? Sikhs? Jains? Hindus? At least Baha'is don't call them false. They just think that each one of them is teaching false things. Or, am I wrong?

Anyway, the resurrection... so let's say that the spirit within the body lives on. The body turns back into dust. Would it have been that hard for Jesus to just make that clear? But then, what does science and reason do about the spirits of people? Has science proven that all people have one? But then what about other creatures? They just die and are gone forever?

Then next, a baby starts to grow... where does the spirit come from? Is it made in the spirit world at that time or is there a storehouse of ready made spirits waiting for a human to be born? Then the person dies and the spirit goes off to some spiritual world. Why couldn't that same spirit be assigned to another human body? Or, the spirit is up in the spirit world and God puts their old physical body back together and sends the spirit back into it? I think all those things are possible for God. And something like those things are taught by different religions. But Baha'is reject the reincarnation and resurrection options. So were those religions wrong? Did they misunderstand their prophet? Did they add those teachings into their religion? Or, were the Scriptures in all those religions that talk about reincarnation and resurrection... all "allegorical"? Anyway thanks Loverofhumanity, you're still my favorite Baha'i, with Adrian running a close second.

I’ll begin with exclusivity. All the religions are basically true and there is no doubt about it. We read from the scriptures of other religions more in our Houses of Worship than our own writings. We consider all the major religions as valid without any Prophet being superior to another.

Regardless of the organisation or administrative structure of any Faith, the true purpose of religion has always been primarily to foster love and fellowship, unity and harmony between people.

When religion ceases to do this and loses sight of its original purpose and function, God then sends another Educator to renew religion. Without doubt one day the Bahá’í Faith will need to be superseded and a new religion take its place.

The fact that so much of belief revolves around the miraculous is concerning because it shows that the main purpose of religion, which is to foster love and unity has been lost sight of to be replaced with dogmas saying ‘I’m better than you’. In this day what is most needed is tolerance and a feeling of solidarity between religions as we all believe in similar things like virtues, good character and to be of service to others.

The spirit of exclusivity, superiority and supremacy goes against the very law of love that all the Prophets have taught and sacrificed Their lives for.

What is most important is for all religionists to set an example of love and fellowship humanity can turn to. People can believe Christ rose physically if they so wish, but what I’m saying is that love for all should be the dominating passion of all religionists not superiority over one another.

There are so many global problems, that we need to work together to solve them- in a spirit of loving cooperation and I believe this can only be achieved if love be the foundation.

Yes we can say science this or science that but love is more important than being politically correct. So although we have different views still losing sight of love is the ultimate mistake we all, including myself, repeatedly make.

Being loving is more important than being right but it’s so easy to lose sight of.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All four of them? What about the gospels that didn't make it into the NT? Were they "allegorical" stories or made up, embellished things? Like Jesus making clay birds come to life? Oops, I guess that really happened because it is in the Quran? So, still, legends and traditions about Jesus most certainly were developed, then the gospels writers put together their stories about Jesus. I don't think they would add their own parables into the stories. And the parables of Jesus aren't that difficult to distinguish between things that, supposedly, really happened and which were just stories Jesus was telling. Especially that they'd be trying to be historically accurate about Jesus being crucified, then go into an "allegorical" story about Jesus coming back to life. And we, most of us anyway, know that they weren't "historically" accurate about the details about the crucifixion. Like the dead people coming out of their graves. So is that a "parable" thrown into the middle of the crucifixion story or a made up mythical thing added in?

The so called infancy gospel of Thomas waa thought to be in circulation during the mid to late second century and is considered an inauthentic and heretical work by the early Church Father’s. It probably has its roots In Gnosticism.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

It is not hard to see why the gospel of Thomas didn’t make it into the NT Canon during the 4th century and definitely not to be compared to the Canonical Gospels.

There are accounts of the infancy of Jesus in the Quran that would clearly have theological as opposed to historical significance.

Obviously there are differences between the parables Jesus told and the story of His Life. However there is no reason why these accounts could not have been mythologised or allegorised.

Yet, the writers go out of their way to make it sound like they are reporting true events and say that their were witnesses that saw him alive and that he was touched and found to have flesh and bone. So I still go with... if it didn't really happen, that the writers made it up and wrote the story as if it really happened. I don't see how or why they would not just say that they all saw the spirit of Jesus, if that is what really happened.

That is exactly how an allegorised narrative works. It needs to sound historical to fit with the text. There Gospel accounts are simply not historical accounts as we know it today.

 

[Billy Michael]

The main problem I have with the resurrection is the ascension as recorded in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11. It makes no sense from a scriptural or logical perspective to have the physical body of Jesus allegedly travelling through the stratosphere into outer space to sit on the right hand side of His Father on a throne in heaven. So while I agree there are questions and issues to work through if that didn't happen, there seems to be far greater issues and questions if we make the assumption Jesus did literally arise from the dead and ascend into heaven.

THIS also seems to me to be a strong reason to reject the notion of a literal resurrection, for how can this be taken literally given what we now know about the cosmos?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

It is my belief that a bodily Resurrection is essential to our eternal destiny and that without it we would suffer endless death, despair, separation from God and subjugation to Satan.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

When a teacher is so beloved, if is hard to let go of them. Jesus is not the only teacher reputed to have risen from the dead. Al Halaj, the Sufi mystic who also claimed to have been one with God and was executed for heresy, also had disciples who claimed he was risen from the dead. The Rebbe, the reputed messiah according to Chabad, has students today who expect his resurrection, and I believe the only reason there are no stories of his resurrection is that our standards of proof are so much stricter today.