Jesus Empty tomb narratives

[Trailblazer]

Since I taught a comparative religions course, I definitely have done that.

I took one comparative religions class during my first year of college and as I recall they only taught the major religions that are well-established. Needless to say that was eons ago. What religions do they teach on these classes nowadays?

Agreed, but objective evidence is quite scarce, needless to say. Therefore, much boils down to what one chooses to believe based on possibly other factors.

I am not sure what you mean by objective evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

I took one comparative religions class during my first year of college and as I recall they only taught the major religions that are well-established. Needless to say that was eons ago. What religions do they teach on these classes nowadays?

I am not sure what you mean by objective evidence.

If you are referring to the bible then the objective evidence would be historical
stuff, ie House of David, temple excavations, the kings of Israel and Judah etc..
The objective evidence for prophecy can be seen in the often stated prophecy
that one day the Jews would come out of all the nations, places that had been
their "graves" and they would "take back with the sword" the land of their fathers.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you are referring to the bible then the objective evidence would be historical stuff, ie House of David, temple excavations, the kings of Israel and Judah etc..

I do not consider that objective evidence unless it has been verified to exist in reality. Nothing in the Bible is objective evidence unless it had been verified to exist or to have existed.
It is not historical unless it has been verified by historians. Has any of that been verified by historians?

The objective evidence for prophecy can be seen in the often stated prophecy
that one day the Jews would come out of all the nations, places that had been
their "graves" and they would "take back with the sword" the land of their fathers.

What is stated in prophecies is not objective evidence until it actually happens.
There is objective evidence for what is stated in prophecies for the return of Christ and the coming of the Messiah, but Jews and Christians completely ignore that evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahai scriptures say it is illogical to say a human birth without father is impossible. But it says, it is illogical to say, a physical body went to space. So, it has its reason in each case, why it can be or cannot be literal.

Yet Baha'i scriptures say that Jesus did not have a human father:

1637. Christ, Virgin Birth of

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings.

Why would it be illogical to question that a woman had a baby without getting impregnated by a man? And it is "evident" that there was "direct" intervention of the Holy Spirit? And, it is an "established" fact? It is? But then God couldn't get a physical body to float off into space? And what was that thing about science and religion must agree or else religion will drift towards superstition?

 

[CG Didymus]

The earliest Christians who knew Jesus and were around after his crucifixion were unlikely to have believed in a literal resurrection given it never happened. Nor do we have any evidence of such beliefs until Paul’s first Epistle to Corinthians 20 years later. The key passage is from 1 Corinthians 15.

The phrase glorified or honour is used a great deal in the Gospel of John, especially in regards the resurrection. Consider chapter 12 that outlines the resurrection of Lazarus:

These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.
John 12:16

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
John 12:23

Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
John 12:28

And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
John 12:32

Not a single Pharisee believed Jesus to have been resurrected. You would think with such an extraordinary event along with the many who arose from their graves (Matthew 27:51-54) that history would leave a record?



The Gospel accounts were written 35 - 70 years after the Christ was crucified. Is it that hard to believe the accounts are redacted and embellished for the purpose of inspiring the faithful?

John 20:31



How does any myth in religion become established? I don’t see there is anything special or unique about Christian mythology as opposed to myths in Hinduism, Islam or Judaism. The only difference lies in so many of your countrymen dogmatically insisting it to be literally true.

No problem. It's all embellished myth. Creation, Satan, the Flood, the Resurrection... but the prophecies are dead on and predicted Jesus, Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah? And, of course, the laws, those were right on exactly what God wanted the Israelites to do? No, somehow the stories, the laws, the prophecies, everything could have had some human embellishment.

But the reality of Judaism and Christianity is that the Scriptures of each were meant to be believed as the literal Word of God. Baha'is seem to be saying... "Yes, it is literally the Word of God, but is not to be taken literally." Which sounds nuts to me.

 

[CG Didymus]

I took one comparative religions class

How did they compare?

 

[CG Didymus]

And being the Son of God is a metaphor for being a righteous person who trusts solely in the Father. And being "sent by the Father" is a metaphor for fulfilling the will of God from conception to death.
And the fact that neither Paul nor Mark, the earliest Christian authors, mention the fantastic claims surrounding the birth of Jesus, together with the previous two metaphors support the zero likelihood of the Qur'an's version of Jesus' birth. Therefore, there is zero basis for Baha'ulla's credibility.

To be clear, Jesus as the ‘Son of God’ as opposed to the ‘son of god’ is a theological narrative that needs careful consideration as to its meanings within the New Testament, Quran and Baha’i Writings. Biblical literalism and rejection of Islam/Baha’i theology are core differences in our world views.

What is the Quran's version of the birth of Jesus as compared to the Baha'i view?

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe because, as Paul wrote: 1 Corinthians 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

Paul certainly emphasises the necessity of belief in the resurrection.

Here's is some more of 1 Cor. 15.

12 But 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? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More 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. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.​

So it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, but what did the Pharisees mean by "resurrection" and what did Paul and other early Christians mean by it? Somewhere I have a book on the beliefs of early Christians and as I recall they believed it was a literal, physical resurrection. For me, to say it means the soul/spirit remains alive doesn't work, 'cause then Jesus did nothing special. I think Tony might be the one saying that, when he quotes the verse that says the flesh amounts to nothing. Anyway, I'll check also to see if I can find a link to what the Pharisees beliefs were.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree Jesus didn’t ascend in outer space via the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven.

But we are saying heaven is in a different dimension, a spiritual dimension. So he's not "floating" in the physical universe. So could it be like a Star Trek thing where he disappearing into that other dimension? Or, I'm still okay with myth.

 

[CG Didymus]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....

It would, but unfortunately I'm not able to put a person who is a Moderator on my "Ignore" list along with all the other Baha'i.

No!!! I'm enjoying reading your posts. I don't understand how people in a religion that believe that now is the time for all people in all religions to come together in peace and unity can **** off so many people in the other religions? Especially Adrian. He goes to interfaith groups and things. Tony or Trailblazer, I'd understand. (Sorry, just kidding. You know I love you guys.)

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would it be illogical to question that a woman had a baby without getting impregnated by a man? And it is "evident" that there was "direct" intervention of the Holy Spirit? And, it is an "established" fact? It is? But then God couldn't get a physical body to float off into space? And what was that thing about science and religion must agree or else religion will drift towards superstition?

I did not say it was illogical to question it, question away.
I accept it because Baha'u'llah wrote it, no more proof is needed, for me.
Maybe God could get a physical body to float off into space, but that does not mean He did that.
Science and religion cannot agree on things that are outside the purview of science.

 

[Terry Sampson]

What is the Quran's version of the birth of Jesus as compared to the Baha'i view?

From the Qur'an:
(See my attachment to this message.)

• #4. Surah 3:45
• #7. Surah 3:59
• #14. Surah 6:110

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't understand how people in a religion that believe that now is the time for all people in all religions to come together in peace and unity can **** off so many people in the other religions?

I fully understand why. Nobody likes a new religion that supersedes their older religions.
This is not rocket science.

 

[CG Didymus]

Pretty much all religions believe and teach that many events they cite were in some way divinely inspired, so are we to believe all of them or only the ones we choose to believe? Buddhism, depending on the raft, is probably the sole exception. .

I think that if you are interested you should investigate the claims of these religions and determine for yourself i

Since I taught a comparative religions course, I definitely have done that.

How was the Baha'i Faith dealt with in Comparative religious courses?

 

[Trailblazer]

How did they compare?

I cannot remember that far back, that was 50 years ago.
I know how they compare now though.

 

[metis]

How was the Baha'i Faith dealt with in Comparative religious courses?

I have to admit very little as the sources I used only paid scant attention to them and some other religions, such as Sikhism. Plus, I wasn't that familiar with either of them them back then since that was roughly 40 years ago, and I had the course thrust at me because of a surprise last-minute retirement, thus giving me little chance at getting "into" them.

Sorry, 'bout that.

BTW, the first time I heard of the Baha'i was at a Seals & Croft concert, whereas they had a presentation at the end.

 

[CG Didymus]

From the Qur'an:
(See my attachment to this message.)

• #4. Surah 3:45
• #7. Surah 3:59
• #14. Surah 6:110

7 3:59 The likeness of Jesus in Allah’s sight is that of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be,” and he was.
14 6:110 When Allah will say, “O Jesus son of Mary, recall My favor upon you and upon your mother, how I supported you with the Holy Spirit. You spoke to the people from the crib, and in maturity. How I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel. And recall that you molded from clay the shape of a bird, by My leave, and then you breathed into it, and it became a bird, by My leave. And you healed the blind and the leprous, by My leave; and you revived the dead, by My leave. And recall that I restrained the Children of Israel from you when you brought them the clear miracles. But those who disbelieved among them said, `This is nothing but obvious sorcery.'“​

Yes, I remember hearing some of this stuff... that it is possible that it came from apocryphal stories of Jesus... that he spoke from the crib and made clay birds come to life. But the Quran says that Jesus "revived" the dead? Baha'is don't believe that. So the NT and Quran, if the Baha'is are correct, were misleading people by saying that Jesus did bring people back to life. And, if he brought others to life, why couldn't he, through God, bring himself to life also?

I'd have absolutely no problem believing that none of it is true, but that's another problem I have with the Baha'is... if it's not true... If it never happened... If the body of Jesus died and stayed dead, then the stories in the gospels are a lie and a hoax. But, they can't say that, instead it's a "metaphor."

 

[CG Didymus]

I fully understand why. Nobody likes a new religion that supersedes their older religions.
This is not rocket science.

Or, is it people don't like when they tell people that a new religion has come, and people ask too many tough questions and ask for proof?

 

[CG Didymus]

I cannot remember that far back, that was 50 years ago.
I know how they compare now though.

Well, that's even better. Go ahead.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have to admit very little as the sources I used only paid scant attention to them and some other religions, such as Sikhism. Plus, I wasn't that familiar with either of them them back then since that was roughly 40 years ago, and I had the course thrust at me because of a surprise last-minute retirement, thus giving me little chance at getting "into" them.

Sorry, 'bout that.

BTW, the first time I heard of the Baha'i was at a Seals & Croft concert, whereas they had a presentation at the end.

That's is what I expected. Back then they were struggling to emerge from obscurity... they still are. I first heard of the Baha'is in about 1970. I was in Southern California down by San Diego, so I saw Seals and Crofts a couple of times and Jimmy Seal's brother's band, England Dan and John Ford Coley.