Why death is a must?

[URAVIP2ME]

With the way things are going no one will be able to live on this earth.

The ^ above ^ is why God will have Jesus step in and bring ruin to those ruining the Earth - Revelation 11:18 B.
Mankind's history has proven man can't establish Peace on Earth, so an alternate government is needed.
That alternate government is God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44 with Jesus as King or Ruler.
So, even when men are saying, "Peace and Security..." that is only a precursor, Not to peace, but to the great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will bring Peace on Earth among person's of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Can anyone in hell come out in your view?
Heres a verse showing Jesus rescued souls in hell.
1 Peter 3:18-20
"18Christ sufferedd for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit.e
19So he went and preached to the spirits in prison— 20those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat"

I find according to Scripture, dead Jesus came out of biblical hell - Acts of the Apostles 2:27
If the Bible's hell was a permanent place, then Jesus would still be in hell.
God resurrected dead Jesus out of hell, but Not on the day he died. - Acts of the Apostles 2:24; Colossians 2:12
I also find 'everyone' in biblical hell comes out biblical hell according to Revelation 20:13-14.
They come out of hell via being ' delivered up ' ( meaning resurrected out of hell ) then, afterwards emptied-out hell is cast vacant into that symbolic ' second death ' for vacated biblical hell.

Since Jesus and the old Hebrew Scriptures teach sleep in death, then while Jesus was dead he was in a sleep like or unconscious state. - John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5.

I also find at 1 Peter 3:18 was a resurrected Jesus after his God resurrected Jesus out of hell/ biblical grave.
I find at 1 Peter 3:19 the ' spirits in prison ' ( Not hell ) are the ' spirits ' mentioned at 2 Peter 2:4.
They are the sinning angels (Not people) of Noah's day. - Jude 6
KJV uses the English word hell at 2 Peter 2:4 but the word is tartarus for those disobedient angels.

 

[Jollybear]

I find according to Scripture, dead Jesus came out of biblical hell - Acts of the Apostles 2:27
If the Bible's hell was a permanent place, then Jesus would still be in hell.
God resurrected dead Jesus out of hell, but Not on the day he died. - Acts of the Apostles 2:24; Colossians 2:12
I also find 'everyone' in biblical hell comes out biblical hell according to Revelation 20:13-14.
They come out of hell via being ' delivered up ' ( meaning resurrected out of hell ) then, afterwards emptied-out hell is cast vacant into that symbolic ' second death ' for vacated biblical hell.

Since Jesus and the old Hebrew Scriptures teach sleep in death, then while Jesus was dead he was in a sleep like or unconscious state. - John 11:11-14; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5.

I also find at 1 Peter 3:18 was a resurrected Jesus after his God resurrected Jesus out of hell/ biblical grave.
I find at 1 Peter 3:19 the ' spirits in prison ' ( Not hell ) are the ' spirits ' mentioned at 2 Peter 2:4.
They are the sinning angels (Not people) of Noah's day. - Jude 6
KJV uses the English word hell at 2 Peter 2:4 but the word is tartarus for those disobedient angels.

The angels did Jesus save them from tartarus in your view?

 

[Bear Wild]

The ^ above ^ is why God will have Jesus step in and bring ruin to those ruining the Earth - Revelation 11:18 B.
Mankind's history has proven man can't establish Peace on Earth, so an alternate government is needed.
That alternate government is God's kingdom government of Daniel 2:44 with Jesus as King or Ruler.
So, even when men are saying, "Peace and Security..." that is only a precursor, Not to peace, but to the great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will bring Peace on Earth among person's of goodwill.

Jesus is running out of time.

 

[Sapiens]

Why we're made to die? why we can't expand our life span to 200 years,
why we can't stay youth? is't just how nature supposed to work?
why nature brought us to this life with the ability to see, to think, to walk,
but it failed to keep us youth for as long as 200 years?
Is't just the work of luck or the work of a plan?

Death has evolved ... just like everything else, to further the success of genome (or subpart thereof) which is not the same as the individual organism.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Jesus is running out of time.

I'm glad you think Jesus is running out of time because the fulfillment of time as described in Scripture is at hand.
Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 the global international proclaiming about God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is at its 'final phase'.
This is the indicator that we are running out of time for the ' final signal ' of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 to take place.
Be Alert ! ( world needs more lerts ) when the powers that be will be saying, "Peace and Security.." that is the ' final signal ' as the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14.
So, we can be confident that what is really 'running out of time' is time for wickedness on Earth.
It's the wicked who are running out of time.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Death has evolved ............................

To me it is Not that death has evolved, but that our 'last enemy death' is to be brought to nothing - 1 Corinthians 15:26.
What will ' evolve ', broadly speaking, is the coming resurrection of the dead through Christ Jesus - Revelation 1:18.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The angels did Jesus save them from tartarus in your view?

In my view, the resurrected Jesus did Not need to save angels , but those 'fallen angels' by seeing the resurrected Jesus then know Jesus died a faithful death and their death, their extinction, is going to happen.

 

[Jollybear]

In my view, the resurrected Jesus did Not need to save angels , but those 'fallen angels' by seeing the resurrected Jesus then know Jesus died a faithful death and their death, their extinction, is going to happen.

Why would jesus "preach the gospel" to them if they had no hope of being redeemed?

Heres the hebrew word for preach there and it referes to the gospel. New Testament Greek - StudyLight.org

Whats the point of preaching to them if they could not be redeemed?

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, I understand what you are getting at. I do not know if King Herod or the Magi really existed but there is no reason to think they didn’t exist. There is no reason to think that the story of Jesus throwing tables over in the temple is symbolic. I believe that Jesus met John the Baptist and He got baptized and I believe that Jesus was crucified. I believe that the two thieves were crucified by His side. I do not know if Mary Magdalene actually went to the tomb and saw the body of Jesus gone but if she did that is because it was never there or it was moved, because I do not believe that Jesus rose from the grave.

In short, there is no reason to question the literal interpretation of things that could have literally happened, as noted above, but some of these could be stories that did not actually happen. Is there any way to verify these stories?

Heres the problem though. If we interpret all the events in Jesus story as literal, but not the resurrection, then this last event abruptly becomes symbolic, because each event flows into the next event, including the resurrection.

There is no reason to think that anything is symbolic unless it contradicts what is scientifically possible. Jesus rising from a grave and coming back to life after three days is scientifically impossible. Also, the physical body of Jesus floating up into the stratosphere and “living” in a place called heaven as we live here on earth is scientifically impossible. Also, Jesus coming down on a cloud in the same body He had when He died is scientifically impossible... In short, the reason that these events have to be symbolic is because they contradict the laws of physics.

I see what your saying about science and that which is possible, but let me ask you this: did God create the universe, physical, along with the spiritual world and all its laws? If he did, would not anything be possible with God? If God is restricted by his own creation, how then is he God?

Yes, but they won’t try for long because they will soon realize that they have no physical body. Then if they were overly attached to things of the flesh such as sex, they will be in hell because they will realize they can never partake of it again. They will have a spiritual body but that has a spiritual purpose, so if they have not acquired spiritual qualities while living on earth, they will be like a child in the womb who did not acquire arms and legs needed in this world. They will be handicapped. It is easy to acquire these qualities in this world by living according to the teachings of Jesus, but once we enter the spiritual world we won’t have the free will we have here to improve our character. That is why it is so important to do that before we die.

So.....does this make human nature period, evil? Sex, food, sleep, by engaging in these, are we then not PREPARING for the afterlife?

Yes they will. It will be like it is now except all people will live in peace and harmony, and equity and justice will prevail. People will come to realize that we are all one human race rather than being divided from people who are different from them. Prejudice of all kinds, national, racial and religious, will be eliminated and we will all live together as one human family.

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288​

Isaiah also foretold this great event in the future...

Isaiah 11:6-9 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.​

What this means is that In the future diverse religions and races will become comrades, friends and companions. The contentions of races, the differences of religions, and the barriers between nations will be completely removed, and all will attain perfect union and reconciliation. Eventually, there will be only one religion, the religion of God and everyone will believe in God – “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

Isaiah 65 says about the same event.

"20“No longer will babies die when only a few days old.

No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.

No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!

Only the cursed will die that young!

21In those days people will live in the houses they build

and eat the fruit of their own vineyards.

22Unlike the past, invaders will not take their houses

and confiscate their vineyards.

For my people will live as long as trees,"

How do you interpret this?

 

[Trailblazer]

Heres the problem though. If we interpret all the events in Jesus story as literal, but not the resurrection, then this last event abruptly becomes symbolic, because each event flows into the next event, including the resurrection.

There is no reason to believe that everything in the Bible literally happened as recorded, but that does not mean none of it happened... The challenge is to figure out what is literal and what is symbolic. I am not sure there is any absolute way to determine that and opinions differ. That is one reason what we have different kinds of Christianity, some fundamentalists believing it is all literal and some liberals believing much is symbolic.

I see what your saying about science and that which is possible, but let me ask you this: did God create the universe, physical, along with the spiritual world and all its laws? If he did, would not anything be possible with God? If God is restricted by his own creation, how then is he God?

It is a Baha’i belief that God and His creation have always existed, but there is more to the universe than our earth. Life on earth evolved over time. Creation was not created in seven days; that is symbolic.

God is not restricted by anyone, he does whatsoever he wills and ordains whatever he pleases..

One could say that anything is possible with God since God is omnipotent, but that does not mean that God will do anything we think God might do. We need to look at history and how God has operated in the past. God has never sent a Messenger/Prophet floating down from a cloud, so there is no REASON to believe that God is suddenly going to change His modus operandi. Besides that, Jesus never said He was coming down on the clouds. He said that we would see the Son of man coming in the clouds but He was not referring to Himself, and He was not referring to actual clouds in the sky... The word clouds is symbolic for those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ. Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Peoples' judgment was clouded when Christ returned.

So.....does this make human nature period, evil? Sex, food, sleep, by engaging in these, are we then not PREPARING for the afterlife?

No, human nature is not inherently evil, but our physical nature is not even real relative to our spiritual nature, which is our personality, our true self. Our physical body is not who we really are; it is just a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth. Our physical body will eventually die and we will go to the spiritual world and take on a spiritual body.

Nothing we do that is purely physical prepares us for the afterlife. What we have to do to prepare for the afterlife is acquire spiritual qualities, which means good character and spirituality. We do this by learning to love of God and other people, helping other people, and by being obedient to God’s Laws. That does not mean we cannot enjoy the physical part of life, but if we put too much emphasis on it then we neglect our spiritual nature.

Isaiah 65 says about the same event.

"20“No longer will babies die when only a few days old.

No longer will adults die before they have lived a full life.

No longer will people be considered old at one hundred!

Only the cursed will die that young!

21In those days people will live in the houses they build

and eat the fruit of their own vineyards.

22Unlike the past, invaders will not take their houses

and confiscate their vineyards.

For my people will live as long as trees,"

How do you interpret this?

I never read those verses before but they sound like they refer to the end times or the Messianic Age as I refer to it. With the advances we are seeing in science in this new age the sky is the limit, so it is possible that in the future babies will not die when a few days old and people won’t be considered old at 100 years of age. Think about it, a couple of centuries ago people did not normally live to be 80, and that was considered old. Now it is common to live that long. I looked up that chapter and there is a lot of symbolism there, but I cannot say I know what it means. However, it concludes with:

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

So I think it is along the same theme as Isaiah 11:6-9.

 

[Jollybear]

There is no reason to believe that everything in the Bible literally happened as recorded, but that does not mean none of it happened... The challenge is to figure out what is literal and what is symbolic. I am not sure there is any absolute way to determine that and opinions differ. That is one reason what we have different kinds of Christianity, some fundamentalists believing it is all literal and some liberals believing much is symbolic.

Which i do agree, some parts are symbolic and some parts literal.

But the resurrection of Jesus, for reasons prior mentioned, i see as literal.

Just because its "supernatural" and "scientifically" impossible, does not mean that the authors intended it to be symbolic, because it dont read in a symbolic way.

It reads just as literal as does the crucifixion and the buriel and the other natural events do.

And again, you mention the challenge to figure out what is literal and what is symbolic. One of the things i point out for this challenge is the ABRUPT stop of literalism into symbolism.

The crucifixion is a literal event, the burial is a literal event and then ABRUPTLY the literalism stops at the resurrection and turns symbolic.

It seams strange that the authors would have done it that way.

It is a Baha’i belief that God and His creation have always existed, but there is more to the universe than our earth.

So, creation never had a begining?

One could say that anything is possible with God since God is omnipotent, but that does not mean that God will do anything we think God might do.

I agree.

We need to look at history and how God has operated in the past.

I agree.

God has never sent a Messenger/Prophet floating down from a cloud, so there is no REASON to believe that God is suddenly going to change His modus operandi.

How do we really know he didnt do it literally?

Besides that, Jesus never said He was coming down on the clouds. He said that we would see the Son of man coming in the clouds but He was not referring to Himself, and He was not referring to actual clouds in the sky... The word clouds is symbolic for those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ. Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Peoples' judgment was clouded when Christ returned.

Thats a interesting interpretation. And i dont completely disagree with that. In fact my view is that there is a duality of meaning within the verses. Literal and symbolic at the same time, in some cases.

But who is the son of man if its not Jesus?

No, human nature is not inherently evil, but our physical nature is not even real relative to our spiritual nature, which is our personality, our true self. Our physical body is not who we really are; it is just a vehicle that carries the soul around while we are alive on earth. Our physical body will eventually die and we will go to the spiritual world and take on a spiritual body.

Nothing we do that is purely physical prepares us for the afterlife. What we have to do to prepare for the afterlife is acquire spiritual qualities, which means good character and spirituality. We do this by learning to love of God and other people, helping other people, and by being obedient to God’s Laws. That does not mean we cannot enjoy the physical part of life, but if we put too much emphasis on it then we neglect our spiritual nature.

I agree.

I never read those verses before but they sound like they refer to the end times or the Messianic Age as I refer to it. With the advances we are seeing in science in this new age the sky is the limit, so it is possible that in the future babies will not die when a few days old and people won’t be considered old at 100 years of age. Think about it, a couple of centuries ago people did not normally live to be 80, and that was considered old. Now it is common to live that long. I looked up that chapter and there is a lot of symbolism there, but I cannot say I know what it means. However, it concludes with:

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

So I think it is along the same theme as Isaiah 11:6-9.

Ok....theres been testings on mice done. Science has doubled there lifespands doing different things.

 

[Trailblazer]

Which i do agree, some parts are symbolic and some parts literal.

But the resurrection of Jesus, for reasons prior mentioned, i see as literal.

Just because its "supernatural" and "scientifically" impossible, does not mean that the authors intended it to be symbolic, because it dont read in a symbolic way.

It reads just as literal as does the crucifixion and the buriel and the other natural events do.

But those other events are events that are scientifically possible, whereas the resurrection is not.

Much of the Bible does not read in a symbolic way but some of it is symbolic nevertheless. The authors might have intended the resurrection to sound real, and we do not know the reasons why.

And again, you mention the challenge to figure out what is literal and what is symbolic. One of the things i point out for this challenge is the ABRUPT stop of literalism into symbolism.

The crucifixion is a literal event, the burial is a literal event and then ABRUPTLY the literalism stops at the resurrection and turns symbolic.

It seems strange that the authors would have done it that way.

There is no way we can know what those authors intended, all we can do is try to parse out what seems plausible. Just because something was written does not mean it actually happened that way. Here is an explanation of the resurrection from a liberal Christian viewpoint.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

3. John Shelby Spong, "The Easter Moment: What Really Happened? Is the literal claim of Easter still believable? Can Christianity afford to debate its originating moment?," at: home

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm​

So, creation never had a beginning?

Here is the quote that explains it in brief. I have another quote more in detail about the origin of creation.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.

As to those sayings, attributed to the Prophets of old, such as, “In the beginning was God; there was no creature to know Him,” and “The Lord was alone; with no one to adore Him,” the meaning of these and similar sayings is clear and evident, and should at no time be misapprehended. To this same truth bear witness these words which He hath revealed: “God was alone; there was none else besides Him. He will always remain what He hath ever been.” Every discerning eye will readily perceive that the Lord is now manifest, yet there is none to recognize His glory. By this is meant that the habitation wherein the Divine Being dwelleth is far above the reach and ken of any one besides Him.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 150-151​

Thats a interesting interpretation. And i dont completely disagree with that. In fact my view is that there is a duality of meaning within the verses. Literal and symbolic at the same time, in some cases.

But who is the son of man if its not Jesus?

Jesus was the Son of man, but Baha’u’llah was the return of the Son of man.

Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah. Jesus was also a Messiah, but he was not the Messiah of the Old Testament who would come to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus said that His work was finished here and he was no more in the world (John 17:4, 11). The reason Christians missed recognizing Baha’u’llah in the mid-19th century (and still do not recognize Him) is because they are waiting for the “literal fulfillment” of those Son of man in the clouds of heaven prophecies. They expect the same physical body of Jesus to come floating down on a physical cloud from heaven...

 

[Thief]

Why we're made to die? why we can't expand our life span to 200 years,
why we can't stay youth? is't just how nature supposed to work?
why nature brought us to this life with the ability to see, to think, to walk,
but it failed to keep us youth for as long as 200 years?
Is't just the work of luck or the work of a plan?

planned.....

we were never intended to live forever in the flesh

 

[Mukesh Sharma]

I agree with your points Epic Beard Man but I have one question to share with you.
Is this necessary to die for controlled the population?

 

[Trailblazer]

Is this necessary to die for controlled the population?

It is necessary if babies are going to continue to be born. Otherwise the earth could not sustain the increased population.

 

[Mukesh Sharma]

Ok. I got your point
Thank you for sharing your views

 

[Jollybear]

But those other events are events that are scientifically possible, whereas the resurrection is not.

Right, but, Jesus said "all things are possible with God".

Look at acts 26:8 paul says

"Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"

So, my question to you is, if paul meant a symbolic resurrection, then why would he ask his audience why they thought THAT was incredable? Because a symbolic resurrection is not incredable.

Much of the Bible does not read in a symbolic way but some of it is symbolic nevertheless. The authors might have intended the resurrection to sound real, and we do not know the reasons why.

Theres very little we know of for 100% certainty. But its about the best explanation for the data.

There is no way we can know what those authors intended, all we can do is try to parse out what seems plausible. Just because something was written does not mean it actually happened that way. Here is an explanation of the resurrection from a liberal Christian viewpoint.What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

Or what if being wrapped in linen and anointed with myre was simply common custom?

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

Paul does mention the burial of Jesus and the appearences. 1 corinthians 15

"3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died."

3

I agree theres nothing wrong in questioning with an open mind. But i dont think its dishonest either for a christian to believe that a literal resurrection took place either.

Here is the quote that explains it in brief. I have another quote more in detail about the origin of creation.

“As to thy question concerning the origin of creation. Know assuredly that God’s creation hath existed from eternity, and will continue to exist forever. Its beginning hath had no beginning, and its end knoweth no end. His name, the Creator, presupposeth a creation, even as His title, the Lord of Men, must involve the existence of a servant.

As to those sayings, attributed to the Prophets of old, such as, “In the beginning was God; there was no creature to know Him,” and “The Lord was alone; with no one to adore Him,” the meaning of these and similar sayings is clear and evident, and should at no time be misapprehended. To this same truth bear witness these words which He hath revealed: “God was alone; there was none else besides Him. He will always remain what He hath ever been.” Every discerning eye will readily perceive that the Lord is now manifest, yet there is none to recognize His glory. By this is meant that the habitation wherein the Divine Being dwelleth is far above the reach and ken of any one besides Him.”Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 150-151

What about the same conventional science that says creation had a begining?

Jesus was the Son of man, but Baha’u’llah was the return of the Son of man.

Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ and the Messiah. Jesus was also a Messiah, but he was not the Messiah of the Old Testament who would come to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus said that His work was finished here and he was no more in the world (John 17:4, 11). The reason Christians missed recognizing Baha’u’llah in the mid-19th century (and still do not recognize Him) is because they are waiting for the “literal fulfillment” of those Son of man in the clouds of heaven prophecies. They expect the same physical body of Jesus to come floating down on a physical cloud from heaven...

So was Baha’u’llah a real person in history?

 

[Trailblazer]

Right, but, Jesus said "all things are possible with God".

Look at acts 26:8 paul says

"Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"

So, my question to you is, if paul meant a symbolic resurrection, then why would he ask his audience why they thought THAT was incredable? Because a symbolic resurrection is not incredable.

I do not think that is a good way to try to determine if the resurrection was literal or symbolic, because we cannot know what Paul meant was incredible. What you are doing is “projecting” what you think is incredible onto Paul. Maybe Paul thought that a spiritual resurrection was incredible.

Theres very little we know of for 100% certainty. But its about the best explanation for the data.

That depends upon how you are looking at the data and other data that surrounds that data. One also has to consider the accuracy of the data.

I agree theres nothing wrong in questioning with an open mind. But idont think its dishonest either for a christian to believe that a literal resurrection took place either.

I never implied that it is dishonest to believe in a literal resurrection. That article simply said that to question the literal resurrection will cause great anxiety. That certainly makes a lot of sense because the literal resurrection is the kingpin around which Christian beliefs revolve. What that article is asking Christians to do is be willing to consider another possibility, that the resurrection was spiritual and not physical.

Where would that leave you? You would still have everything that Jesus taught and you would have the cross sacrifice. To me, these are the most important parts of Christianity. It is not as if you will not go to heaven and have a body; it just won’t be a resurrected physical body, although in a sense it will be resurrected because after the physical body dies the ethereal body separates from the physical body and it rises again as a spiritual body.

What about the same conventional science that says creation had a beginning?

Science might know that the earth had a beginning, or even certain galaxies, stars and planets, but science has not proven that there was a beginning of everything.

“As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men’s thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds. Indeed He was a hidden treasure. This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to. And in the station of ‘I did wish to make Myself known’, God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning.”
Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140​

So was Baha’u’llah a real person in history?

Yes, he was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Vancouversailor]

Why we're made to die? why we can't expand our life span to 200 years,
why we can't stay youth? is't just how nature supposed to work?
why nature brought us to this life with the ability to see, to think, to walk,
but it failed to keep us youth for as long as 200 years?
Is't just the work of luck or the work of a plan?

What distinguishes humans from other creatures is that humans for most of their lives have to live with the knowledge that eventually they will die. That knowledge is what has propelled the creation and propagation of religious beliefs, as well as well honed creativity (Most humans, knowing they will be gone one day, want to leave their mark on the world, which as we know many of our most famous artists, authors, composers and architects have done.) What a different place - not necessarily better - the world would be if humans became immortal. So we will need to go on doing what most humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years, make the best of our allocated life span, accept mortality, and stop wasting time and energy on fighting or pondering on our immanent demise.