Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

[omega2xx]

Pure wishful thinking on your part.

You said --

Evidentglyh you do not understand "dishonest."

People do not have to prove-false, ghosts, goblins, fairies, and the other mythological ideas coming from people's brains. It is up to the person claiming the unseen myth, to prove it is true.

And that is what makes your argument so funny.

You have to provide the evidence for any dogmatic statement you make. If you say ther is not God, you need to present your evidence. Do you really expect me to accept your biased OPINION?

YOU can not prove your God and myth, but you expect us to accept it "or else," - and you want us to prove false what YOU can't even prove to be true.

You have it backwards. I do not expect you to accept what I believe, I expect you to reject it. Thanks for proving me right. I expect you to prove what you say or admit you can't. You have a double standard. You want me to prove there is a God, but are not willing to prove there is no God.

It is indeed FAITH - as I said.

That works both ways. I have faith God does exist, you have faith He doe snot exist.

And we don't care what you believe in.

So what? who cares what you believe?

The problem is when you want us to follow your myth which has no proof.

You have no proof it is a myth and the prudent thing to do would be to try and find evidence that you are right.

Or when Christians try to force their religious law into the law of the land.

When Christians values were more accepted, even by non-believers, in America, America was a much better and safer place.

And what is even funnier in this situation - is that YOU expect us to believe YOUR not provable religious myth, but then YOU don't believe other religion's myth when they proclaim it TRUE, to YOU. LOL!

I expect one thing from you---present the evidence for any dogmatic statement you make. If you expect me to present the evidence for God, I expect you to present the evidence that God is a myth. I do not accept your double standard

1. I don't have to disprove what you can't prove.

You have to prove what you say.

2. You have said such to others whom don't agree with YOU.

I have not.

That is straight out FALSE! You go on Faith. I prefer science. Prove your mythic assertions.

Then show where science proves mutations are a mechanism for a change of species. You don't even know that evolution is not science based.

Until any religion can prove their assertions, - they are just Faith, - thus mythos.

Prove what you said or admit you can't.

]
Mythos = the underlying system of beliefs, especially those dealing with supernatural forces, characteristic of a particular cultural group.

Prove Christianiyt fits that definition.

]Myth = a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

*

Prove Christianity fits that definition.

Hint. Definitions do not prove anything.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Actually, I do not consider what I posted a challenge since I only refer to sources approved by the Church. it presents a problem to those who insist the Resurrection narrative must be accepted as literal.

One approach is meditating on the mystery of the resurrection. Another is to insisting the resurrection is literally true and this is a fundamental Christian belief. There is a world of difference between the two. I'm challenging the latter position and arguing it can not be true.

 

[MJFlores]

Did Jesus physically rise from the dead or this an allegorical story?

Perhaps its both and maybe neither?

What is the best way of understanding this core Christian belief?

I believe - God raised Jesus from the dead.
The Lord Jesus Christ did not simply rose himself but someone did resurrect him.

This is what the bible says - according to apostle Peter:

then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Acts 4:10

That is why he called the firstborn from the dead:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, Revelation 1:5

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe - God raised Jesus from the dead.
The Lord Jesus Christ did not simply rose himself but someone did resurrect him.

This is what the bible says - according to apostle Peter:

then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Acts 4:10

That is why he called the firstborn from the dead:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, Revelation 1:5

The language of the apostles is beautiful and glorious filled with metaphor, symbolism and allegory. The problem comes when we insist it to be literally true.

 

[omega2xx]

One approach is meditating on the mystery of the resurrection. Another is to insisting the resurrection is literally true and this is a fundamental Christian belief. There is a world of difference between the two. I'm challenging the latter position and arguing it can not be true.

You do it from a non-Biblical source. Why do you accept the teahings of Bahai superior to the teachings of Christianity?

 

[pearl]

Another is to insisting the resurrection is literally true

There is a difference between literal truth and a literalist interpretation. The literal truth is that which the author wishes to convey. That literal truth is what is to be believed, the confession of faith. The narrative, used to convey that truth, has to be understood in its initial situation, 'sitz em leben' (sits in life).

 

[Dawnofhope]

You do it from a non-Biblical source. Why do you accept the teahings of Bahai superior to the teachings of Christianity?

For the same reason you consider Christian superior to Judaism.

 

[pearl]

I believe - God raised Jesus from the dead.
The Lord Jesus Christ did not simply rose himself but someone did resurrect him.

Yes, the Resurrection is first, what God did for Jesus. It was not an evolution in human consciousness, nor the disciples' brilliant insight into the meaning of the crucifixion, but the sovereign action of God glorifying Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

There is a difference between literal truth and a literalist interpretation. The literal truth is that which the author wishes to convey. That literal truth is what is to be believed, the confession of faith. The narrative, used to convey that truth, has to be understood in its initial situation, 'sitz em leben' (sits in life).

So what is the literal truth and literalist interpretation in regards the resurrection?

 

[MJFlores]

The language of the apostles is beautiful and glorious filled with metaphor, symbolism and allegory. The problem comes when we insist it to be literally true.

I believe it is literally true. To fulfill the scriptures in the Old Testament - to prove that the Lord Jesus Christ is the chosen one of God

Acts 2:23-28 New International Version (NIV)

This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. David said about him: (Psalm 16:10)

“‘I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will rest in hope,
because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’

 

[omega2xx]

For the same reason you consider Christian superior to Judaism.

Reasonable reason.

 

[Muffled]

JESUS, The way, the truth and life.
That is the point.

I believe one may know that but unless one receives Jesus as Lord and Savior it isn't internalized and pointless. I may have matches to light a fire but if I ignore the matches and try to rub two sticks together it makes the matches pointless.

 

[1robin]

Neither of the Evangelists make any attempt to describe the Resurrection, it is the interpretation of the empty tomb. The first witness, Mary the Magdalene, probably the closest to Him did not recognize Him. People who sat at table with Him days earlier did not recognize Him, Only where He granted vision was He seen. That's why the impossibility of the Gospels to describe the encounter with the risen Christ. We confess that God raised Jesus from death to life, the narrative is the attempt to describe the risen Jesus.




















































































agdalene

pcarl, I can't figure out what it is your trying to say and your formatting your posts in strange ways making them hard to comprehend. I am afraid I will have to leave you to it.

 

[1robin]

The problem is I dialled a different number and received an answer!

In what way? Give me a scripture from the principle Baha'i texts which offers a universal spiritual experience to everyone who comes to believe, the moment they first believed.

 

[pearl]

So what is the literal truth and literalist interpretation in regards the resurrection?

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve."
Paul 1Cor

 

[1robin]

And he still had nail holes? I'd sue the body manufacturer for just giving me the same ol', same ol'.

I do not think you have read the book your condemning. If you actually care why Christ had the scars he did you can read this famous sermon in about 10 minutes, but my money is on your not really wanting to know.

The Wounds of Jesus

 

[1robin]

What @pcarl makes perfect sense. I think it is very difficult for Christians to challenge mainstream conservative beliefs about the resurrection. I know of academics have lost their posts or even tried for heresy just for saying what they really think.

Ok, please explain it. I do not think English is pcarl's primary language because I can't really follow what they are saying.

Conservative what?

You actually know someone tried for heresy?

So why are the Romans placing a criminal into a tomb rather than dumping him in a hole somewhere with all the other bodies.

Come on Adrian, Sunday school children know that answer.

38Later on, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus (but secretly for fear of the Jews), asked Pilate’s permission to take away the body of Jesus. Pilate granted it, so he came and removed His body. 39Nicodemus, who had previously come to Jesus at night, also brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.…

and

Matthew 27:60 and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.

BTW that event also fulfilled about 3 or 4 prophecies.

The Romans were indifferent about Christ's punishment. Pilate claimed he found no fault with him, but the Hebrew priestly incited the crowd to demand his execution. The Romans also were indifferent about his burial, it was only when Caiaphas demanded it that Pilate had the tomb sealed and guarded. If you just leave the bible alone it flows with perfect harmony, explanatory power, and explanatory scope.

He hadn't considered the phrase (Divine) physician heal thyself?

It appears you could use a little lite reading as well: The Wounds of Jesus

 

[Ingledsva]

You have it backwards. I do not expect you to accept what I believe, I expect you to reject it. Thanks for proving me right. I expect you to prove what you say or admit you can't. You have a double standard. You want me to prove there is a God, but are not willing to prove there is no God.

That works both ways. I have faith God does exist, you have faith He doe snot exist.

So what? who cares what you believe?

You have no proof it is a myth and the prudent thing to do would be to try and find evidence that you are right.

Again! Ridiculous!

It is up to YOU to prove your scientifically unverifiable claims, - or stop this baloney and admit all you have is Faith.

This is no different than another religion claiming to YOU - that Kronos/Cronus is real, and he really was forced to regurgitate his children. We have texts that say so.

When Christians values were more accepted, even by non-believers, in America, America was a much better and safer place.

This is baloney, - women just didn't have a platform. They were being beaten, raped, murdered, prostituted. Children were being molested and raped. We had wars. And most of the other crap still going on.

I expect one thing from you---present the evidence for any dogmatic statement you make. If you expect me to present the evidence for God, I expect you to present the evidence that God is a myth. I do not accept your double standard

You have to prove what you say.

LOL! Prove Cronus isn't real, and didn't regurgitate his children. Ridiculous thing to ask - yes? This is YOU, telling others to disprove your religious myth.

I have not.

Then show where science proves mutations are a mechanism for a change of species. You don't even know that evolution is not science based.

LOL! You are funny. I'll take science over your talking serpents and donkeys, etc., any day.

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

The science of evolution - The Science of Evolution

Prove what you said or admit you can't.

Prove Christianiyt fits that definition.
Prove Christianity fits that definition.
Hint. Definitions do not prove anything.

LOL! Now you are going to challenge the dictionary definitions - because they don't aline with your thinking?

Mythos = the underlying system of beliefs, especially those dealing with supernatural forces, characteristic of a particular cultural group.

Myth = a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

That is the definition. Get over it.

The heavens are declaring the glory of God.

So say YOU, and your book. No proof.

*

 

[pearl]

That is the definition. Get over it.

You are quite wrong concerning the concept of myth.

And this brings us to the nature of myths generally and how the understanding of them has changed over time. The change represents a great loss. It is as if a curtain of darkness has fallen over a vast treasure of truth, and all because of an unnecessarily narrow conception of truth.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Religion_and_Truth

 

[Ingledsva]

You are quite wrong concerning the concept of myth.

And this brings us to the nature of myths generally and how the understanding of them has changed over time. The change represents a great loss. It is as if a curtain of darkness has fallen over a vast treasure of truth, and all because of an unnecessarily narrow conception of truth.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Religion_and_Truth

That is the definition.

And apparently you didn't notice he used the words myth and mythology throughout.

"The best way into our subject is through a look at ancient mythology."

Without proof, your religious beliefs are no different than the belief in Zeus, or the Egyptian pantheon, or any other.

Without proof they all fall under the dictionary definition.

*