Jesus Empty tomb narratives

[metis]

So, were you raised with any religion or believing in God, or did you come to belief later in life?

I was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant church, and I had tentative plans on going into the ministry. But two things really bothered me there, with one being the basically anti-science teachings within that denomination plus the blatant racism I encountered, although that wasn't aimed at me. I then entered an agnostic period for about 10 years but then converted to my wife's Catholicism when 30. The rest of the story you already know from my previous post.

I sure hope I did not bore you to tears

My head hit the keyboard several times, but I survived.

Seriously, I very much enjoyed your post, and it's a excellent reminder of what Gandhi taught, namely that "there are many paths to God". Thanks so much, my friend.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The first lifeform that emerged, that was destined to become human was what? Did it have a father or a mother? The last stage of evolution, before man became man, did that lifeform have a mother and father? Have all humans since then had a mother and father? Except Jesus? If we are going to disbelieve the resurrection, I see no reason to believe the "Virgin" birth. The story is based off of one verse in Isaiah chapter 7 and is taken completely out of context. The chapter is not about a Messianic prophecy. Then only two gospel writers tell of the gospel and tell it different. Then there is supposedly a star that leads the Wise men to Bethlehem? No, if you don't want to believe it literally, then dump it all.

Yes, but, there was a time, that there was no living creature on earth. So, the beginning of life, happened at that point. Why this is not happening again? I mean why, the dust does not turn into living cells, then evolve to various species anymore? In billion years, it happened only once on earth. So, the pregnancy of Mother of Jesus without intercourse with a man, may have happened under an unknown circumstances, but just as human could happened without a father and mother, the pregnancy of a woman without a man, may have happened. We just cannot disprove or prove it. But going to space without air, can be proved to be scientifically impossible. As regards to resurrection of a person who died long ago, back to life, this is impossible scientifically, because that involves having same brain with same memory cells, with all he has learned and experienced before. How can a dead body that has lost its living cell, becomes the same human, with same all knowledge and personality?

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, but, there was a time, that there was no living creature on earth. So, the beginning of life, happened at that point. Why this is not happening again? I mean why, the dust does not turn into living cells, then evolve to various species anymore? In billion years, it happened only once on earth. So, the pregnancy of Mother of Jesus without intercourse with a man, may have happened under an unknown circumstances, but just as human could happened without a father and mother, the pregnancy of a woman without a man, may have happened. We just cannot disprove or prove it. But going to space without air, can be proved to be scientifically impossible. As regards to resurrection of a person who died long ago, back to life, this is impossible scientifically, because that involves having same brain with same memory cells, with all he has learned and experienced before. How can a dead body that has lost its living cell, becomes the same human, with same all knowledge and personality?

But... is it impossible for God? Ultimately no. But you and I don't believe the story as told anyway. It is only important to literal believing Christians. It is central to their beliefs. All I'm saying is that if it isn't true, then any Christian the literally believes that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven... is believing a lie. Some Baha'is try to soften it by saying that it was "symbolically" true. To me, that means the story was fictional. And since they believe a fictional story is literal, then still... they are believing a lie.

The problem for me is that the gospels tell it as if it was true. Because of that, I can see why Christians, serious, Bible-believing Christians, take it literal... and, as much as possible, take all the Bible stories as literal. Today, it is getting harder and harder to believe those stories like the resurrection and Creation as literal. And I put the virgin birth into that same category. I see no reason why it shouldn't be taken symbolically, fictional or whatever, but no way as being literal. I'll ask again, read the seventh chapter of Isaiah and tell me how one verse, verse 14, is taken out of the story, and how that one verse, then becomes a prophecy about the future Messiah. The whole context is about a boy in that day that does certain things. None of those things fits in the Jesus story. Then the boy reaches the age of knowing how to choose between right and wrong. When he reaches that age, the prophecy is fulfilled. The enemies of King Ahaz will be dead and gone.

Do you believe there was such a boy? A boy that fulfilled that part of the prophecy? If so, did that boy also fulfill the prophecy of being born of a virgin? Or, was he born of a "young maiden"? Another problem, just like flying in the sky and rising from the dead, many people were said to have been fathered by the Gods and had no earthly human father. That's why I lean toward believing that if the stories didn't happen as told in the gospels, then it is very possible that the gospel writers took fabricated stories and legends about Jesus and wrote them down as if they really happened. The virgin birth, since none of them but Mary was there, could have easily been nothing but a fictional story. And I doubt if you believe the wandering star part that led the Wise Men to Bethlehem, so unless you do, then that part of the story is added in fiction.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But... is it impossible for God? Ultimately no. But you and I don't believe the story as told anyway. It is only important to literal believing Christians. It is central to their beliefs. All I'm saying is that if it isn't true, then any Christian the literally believes that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven... is believing a lie. Some Baha'is try to soften it by saying that it was "symbolically" true. To me, that means the story was fictional. And since they believe a fictional story is literal, then still... they are believing a lie.

The problem for me is that the gospels tell it as if it was true. Because of that, I can see why Christians, serious, Bible-believing Christians, take it literal... and, as much as possible, take all the Bible stories as literal. Today, it is getting harder and harder to believe those stories like the resurrection and Creation as literal. And I put the virgin birth into that same category. I see no reason why it shouldn't be taken symbolically, fictional or whatever, but no way as being literal. I'll ask again, read the seventh chapter of Isaiah and tell me how one verse, verse 14, is taken out of the story, and how that one verse, then becomes a prophecy about the future Messiah. The whole context is about a boy in that day that does certain things. None of those things fits in the Jesus story. Then the boy reaches the age of knowing how to choose between right and wrong. When he reaches that age, the prophecy is fulfilled. The enemies of King Ahaz will be dead and gone.

Do you believe there was such a boy? A boy that fulfilled that part of the prophecy? If so, did that boy also fulfill the prophecy of being born of a virgin? Or, was he born of a "young maiden"? Another problem, just like flying in the sky and rising from the dead, many people were said to have been fathered by the Gods and had no earthly human father. That's why I lean toward believing that if the stories didn't happen as told in the gospels, then it is very possible that the gospel writers took fabricated stories and legends about Jesus and wrote them down as if they really happened. The virgin birth, since none of them but Mary was there, could have easily been nothing but a fictional story. And I doubt if you believe the wandering star part that led the Wise Men to Bethlehem, so unless you do, then that part of the story is added in fiction.

But when we look at scriptures, we can actually find certain expressions in various passages, that tells us, the authors of Bible have used the terms Resurrection and Dead or Alive, metaphorically. In many instances, They, use the term "dead", to mean "misguided", and they use the term "living", to mean "believer, and guided to truth". In many case you see, the bible says we were dead, but now resurrected, meaning we were misguided, and now, know truth when we recognized Christ. So, this backs up that, the when the authors spoke of Resurrection, they always meant metaphorically. But, with regards to birth without human father, now where in the bible, we can find any metaphorical meaning associated with it. This is consistent with Bahai scriptures as it takes birth of christ without father literal, but Resurrection as a metaphor!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

But when we look at scriptures, we can actually find certain expressions in various passages, that tells us, the authors of Bible have used the terms Resurrection and Dead or Alive, metaphorically. In many instances, They, use the term "dead", to mean "misguided", and they use the term "living", to mean "believer, and guided to truth". In many case you see, the bible says we were dead, but now resurrected, meaning we were misguided, and now, know truth when we recognized Christ. So, this backs up that, the when the authors spoke of Resurrection, they always meant metaphorically. But, with regards to birth without human father, now where in the bible, we can find any metaphorical meaning associated with it. This is consistent with Bahai scriptures as it takes birth of christ without father literal, but Resurrection as a metaphor!

 

[CG Didymus]

But when we look at scriptures, we can actually find certain expressions in various passages, that tells us, the authors of Bible have used the terms Resurrection and Dead or Alive, metaphorically. In many instances, They, use the term "dead", to mean "misguided", and they use the term "living", to mean "believer, and guided to truth". In many case you see, the bible says we were dead, but now resurrected, meaning we were misguided, and now, know truth when we recognized Christ. So, this backs up that, when the authors spoke of Resurrection, , they always meant metaphorically. But, with regards to birth without human father, now where in the bible, we can find any metaphorical meaning associated with it. This is consistent with Bahai scriptures as it takes birth of christ without father literal, but Resurrection as a metaphor!

Does the story in the gospels sound like they were being metaphorical? I'd say "no". Did the story of the "virgin" birth sound metaphorical? No. Do Christians believe both to be literal? Many Christians do. Baha'is don't need either one to be literal. Not that these beliefs are true, but I do think that is what was believed by most... that the resurrection was physical.

From Judaism...

Resurrection of the dead — t’chiyat hameitim in Hebrew — is a core doctrine of traditional Jewish theology. Traditional Jews believe that during the Messianic Age, the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, the Jewish people ingathered from the far corners of the earth and the bodies of the dead will be brought back to life and reunited with their souls.​

From a Christian site...

The resurrection of Jesus is important for several reasons. First, the resurrection witnesses to the immense power of God Himself. To believe in the resurrection is to believe in God. If God exists, and if He created the universe and has power over it, then He has power to raise the dead. If He does not have such power, He is not worthy of our faith and worship. Only He who created life can resurrect it after death, only He can reverse the hideousness that is death itself, and only He can remove the sting and gain the victory over the grave (1 Corinthians 15:54–55). In resurrecting Jesus from the grave, God reminds us of His absolute sovereignty over life and death.
​

when the authors spoke of Resurrection, they always meant metaphorically.

Really? Always? Where in this story does it sound like they are speaking metaphorically?
Luke 24...

1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen!

36... Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.
38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?”
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,​

This is how the previous chapter ends...

Luke 23:55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.
56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
​

Was this metaphorical also? Or, was chapter 23 the gospel writer telling the story of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus? And then the very next chapter the writer goes into a "metaphorical" fictional story of how Jesus was resurrected? Belief it is all literally true. Believe it was partially true and the dressed it up a bit. Believe the whole thing is a made up hoax. But why believe that suddenly the writers add in a metaphorical ending to their story?

​

 

[Trailblazer]

Does the story in the gospels sound like they were being metaphorical?

No it doesn't but it does not matter what a story sounds like.
The only thing that matters is the Truth from God, not what men wrote 2000 years ago.

 

[Terry Sampson]

But when we look at scriptures

"We" who?

we can actually find certain expressions in various passages, that tells us, the authors of Bible have used the terms Resurrection and Dead or Alive, metaphorically

The probability of you or I changing one another's mind and reconciling our irreconcilable differences in understanding this or that verse in the whole of Christian Scriptures is zero. Give it up and move on. Baha'i theology sheds no light on my path.

 

[CG Didymus]

No it doesn't but it does not matter what a story sounds like.
The only thing that matters is the Truth from God, not what men wrote 2000 years ago.

You're the logical one. I kind of try to be, so here it goes... They wrote it as if it really happened. But, some people don't believe it really happened. So the most logical thing for me to believe is that they made it up.

Logically, could they have pulled off such a deception? I'd don't think they could. When did they steal the body and not get caught? Where did they hide the body so it was never found? Those that knew kept it a secret and none of them squealed? Then, were they the ones that started the rumor that Jesus had risen? Then somebody had to start the rumor that his disciples and several others saw Jesus alive. How did they pull that off? There must have been some Christians that were still around when the oral traditions started circulating and then finally get written down into the gospel stories? And no one said anything to the contrary? Logically, very unlikely.

So what are the alternatives? That it really happened? That isn't logical. Unless there is a God that could do such a thing. But even if Jesus came back to life, his body wasn't the same. He could appear and disappear. So if he could do that, why not float off into space. But then supposed dead people came out of their graves and walked around. I doubt there is any evidence other than one gospel that says such a thing. If that is the case, then there is a good chance this gospel writer made it up or it was one of the oral traditions going around. So, logically, if the gospel writer made up that part of the story, why not the rest of the resurrection story? So logically, it is unlikely to be true, so possibly the stories were just oral traditions passed down... except it's is also unlikely they could have pulled off such a deception.

The other alternative is the Baha'i metaphorical explanation. Logically, to me, that's just plain dumb.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're the logical one. I kind of try to be, so here it goes... They wrote it as if it really happened. But, some people don't believe it really happened. So the most logical thing for me to believe is that they made it up.

It is logical to believe they made it up if you do not believe it really happened.

Logically, could they have pulled off such a deception? I'd don't think they could. When did they steal the body and not get caught? Where did they hide the body so it was never found? Those that knew kept it a secret and none of them squealed? Then, were they the ones that started the rumor that Jesus had risen? Then somebody had to start the rumor that his disciples and several others saw Jesus alive. How did they pull that off? There must have been some Christians that were still around when the oral traditions started circulating and then finally get written down into the gospel stories? And no one said anything to the contrary? Logically, very unlikely.

I fully agree, very unlikely, but there is no reason from me to believe it anyway since there is no verifiable evidence and a bodily resurrection contradicts science.

So what are the alternatives? That it really happened? That isn't logical. Unless there is a God that could do such a thing. But even if Jesus came back to life, his body wasn't the same. He could appear and disappear. So if he could do that, why not float off into space. But then supposed dead people came out of their graves and walked around. I doubt there is any evidence other than one gospel that says such a thing. If that is the case, then there is a good chance this gospel writer made it up or it was one of the oral traditions going around. So, logically, if the gospel writer made up that part of the story, why not the rest of the resurrection story? So logically, it is unlikely to be true, so possibly the stories were just oral traditions passed down... except it's is also unlikely they could have pulled off such a deception.

I believe that most likely the stories were just oral traditions passed down.

The other alternative is the Baha'i metaphorical explanation. Logically, to me, that's just plain dumb.

I do not see the Baha'i explanation as metaphorical. The Baha'i explanation reads as if the resurrection story is a true story and then it tries to come up with another explanation of what happened.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not see the Baha'i explanation as metaphorical. The Baha'i explanation reads as if the resurrection story is a true story and then it tries to come up with another explanation of what happened.

Doesn't Abdul Baha' make the followers of Jesus his metaphorical "body"?

 

[CG Didymus]

No it doesn't but it does not matter what a story sounds like.
The only thing that matters is the Truth from God, not what men wrote 2000 years ago.

Yes, it doesn't sound like they were being metaphorical. But because they had a dead man come back to life three days later, appear and disappear, have a flesh and bone body and yet, float off into the clouds, to me, if it didn't really happen, it's probably myth and legend.

And about the Truth from God? Who knows? These writers 2000 years ago seemed to think they were writing the Truth from God. For me, essentially, all they were saying is be good people, believe on Jesus and God will reward you after you die. And they weren't going to get anybody to do good and follow the rules unless they told their story as if it came from God. So, if it's not totally and completely true, then what is it? The half-truth from God? The partial truth from God? Or... just a story that pretends that it came from God and has some things in it that sound like maybe a God might have done and said such things?

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't Abdul Baha' make the followers of Jesus his metaphorical "body"?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, if it's not totally and completely true, then what is it? The half-truth from God? The partial truth from God? Or... just a story that pretends that it came from God and has some things in it that sound like maybe a God might have done and said such things?

It is a story that men wrote about Jesus long after he walked the face of the earth.
I do not think we will ever know why it was written that way, but we can conjecture till the cows come home.
All we can say is that the story got the job done, as it sounded so real that it fooled millions and millions of people.

 

[CG Didymus]

the authors of Bible have used the terms Resurrection and Dead or Alive, metaphorically.

Bahai scriptures as it takes birth of christ without father literal, but Resurrection as a metaphor!

Does the story in the gospels sound like they were being metaphorical?

No it doesn't but it does not matter what a story sounds like.

The other alternative is the Baha'i metaphorical explanation. Logically, to me, that's just plain dumb.

I do not see the Baha'i explanation as metaphorical.

Doesn't Abdul Baha' make the followers of Jesus his metaphorical "body"?

What do you mean by that?

No, Abdul Baha' isn't the one that made the followers of Jesus his metaphorical body. Abdul Baha' says... "His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical"... "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... 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."

Investigate Truth calls it metaphorical and Abdul Baha does too. You don't agree?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, Abdul Baha' isn't the one that made the followers of Jesus his metaphorical body. Abdul Baha' says... "His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical"... "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... 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."

Investigate Truth calls it metaphorical and Abdul Baha does too. You don't agree?

Yes, this part is metaphorical:

"the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it."

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, this part is metaphorical:

"the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it."

And I disagree with Abdul Baha's interpretation.

It is a story that men wrote about Jesus long after he walked the face of the earth.
I do not think we will ever know why it was written that way, but we can conjecture till the cows come home.
All we can say is that the story got the job done, as it sounded so real that it fooled millions and millions of people.

Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach
2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about.
5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”​

Luke is saying that these things happened. No chance he's being "metaphorical", which makes Abdul Baha wrong. Is he lying? If so, Abdul Baha should have said so, instead of making up a metaphorical interpretation of a made up myth. And, as an added bonus, in verse 11 it says "This same Jesus" will come back. So is Luke wrong again or is Baha'u'llah?

Since you believe Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha' are right, then Luke must be wrong. And, since he's probably not the one that made up these stories, and because the other gospel stories tell the same story, then the apostles and the other disciples were probably the ones spreading this false belief about Jesus resurrecting from the dead. But Baha'u'llah don't say they are false stories and lies. Instead, Abdul Baha' makes them metaphorical. And, since Baha'is believe he is telling the truth, that must be what the writer meant and the stupid followers of Jesus told the story as being literal. It might work for most Baha'is, but I still say the metaphorical interpretation of the Resurrection is dumb. If it never happened it is a lie and the Christians passed it on as if it was true. Then, what else did they make up about Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

But Baha'u'llah don't say they are false stories and lies. Instead, Abdul Baha' makes them metaphorical. And, since Baha'is believe he is telling the truth, that must be what the writer meant and the stupid followers of Jesus told the story as being literal. It might work for most Baha'is, but I still say the metaphorical interpretation of the Resurrection is dumb. If it never happened it is a lie and the Christians passed it on as if it was true. Then, what else did they make up about Jesus?

I do not believe that the stories that were recorded in the NT about the bodily resurrection ever happened, but there is no way to know the original intent of the authors because we cannot ask them now. There is no way to know what else they made up about Jesus and it really does not matter to me. that happened 2000 years ago so i do not know why we are still discussing it now..

I see no need for the .need for the metaphorical interpretation because that is like saying a resurrection of Jesus happened but it really was not a bodily resurrection. Baha'u'llah explained the meaning of Resurrection and that is good enough for me.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 144

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not believe that the stories that were recorded in the NT about the bodily resurrection ever happened, but there is no way to know the original intent of the authors because we cannot ask them now. There is no way to know what else they made up about Jesus and it really does not matter to me. that happened 2000 years ago so i do not know why we are still discussing it now..

We're discussing it because Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost 2000 years. Is it based on a fake story about Jesus coming back to life? Baha'is support the belief that Jesus did not rise physically from the dead... that his physical body rotted away. Those Christians that believe he did raise from the dead physically base their belief on what is written in the NT. To them, it is the Word of God. If the resurrection didn't happen, if those things written in the NT are "just" stories, meaning they are true, then the NT is not the Word of God, but just the embellished, fictional words of men.

I see no need for the .need for the metaphorical interpretation because that is like saying a resurrection of Jesus happened but it really was not a bodily resurrection. Baha'u'llah explained the meaning of Resurrection and that is good enough for me.

But isn't that what Abdul Baha' and Baha'u'llah are saying? That their was a resurrection... a metaphorical, symbolic resurrection. Implying that is was a mistake by Christians to have ever taken the resurrection story literally.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 144

"Established"? "Through clear evidences"? That by "resurrection is meant the rise of the manifestation of God to proclaim his cause"? So he's saying all manifestation "resurrected?' Just that with Jesus his stupid followers made up a crazy story about Jesus dying and raising from the dead as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. So that's a false claim and false belief. Therefore, Christianity is a false religion.

You and I probably wouldn't have any problem with that, but would Baha'u'llah? Yes, he would, because Christianity is an important part of the "progression" to his religion. Only problem is, Baha'is essentially don't believe anything about it... as believed and practiced by any and all Christian churches. Even if a Baha'i pretends to believe in the NT, that is not all that true either, since many of the things Baha'is believe to be false about Christian beliefs are based on what the "stories" say.... the number one thing being the coming back to life of Jesus. And, Jesus wasn't the only one that the NT says came back to life... and the other ones were not manifestations, so Baha'u'llah's definition of a "resurrection" doesn't work for them. Our explanation does, though... we say they are just stories.

They only difference between you and I is you still believe that the Baha'i interpretations/explanations make sense. I don't. I think the Baha'is might as well place the gospel stories in with the stories about the Greek Gods and Goddesses and call them myth. And it's not just the Christian NT, but the whole Bible. Genesis Creation story? Myth. World wide flood? Myth. Parting the Seas? Myth. Jonah and the big fish? Myth. The Sun stopping for a whole day? Myth. The resurrection? Myth. And I would include the virgin birth and call it myth.

Of course it all could be true. But who, other than literally believing Christians, believes that? But to believe all these "stories" were meant to be taken metaphorically and not literally? No, I don't believe it. They were writing myths and legends about an all powerful God that did miraculous things for those who believed and trusted him. And did horrible things to those that worshipped false gods and did evil things.

 

[Trailblazer]

We're discussing it because Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost 2000 years. Is it based on a fake story about Jesus coming back to life? Baha'is support the belief that Jesus did not rise physically from the dead... that his physical body rotted away. Those Christians that believe he did raise from the dead physically base their belief on what is written in the NT. To them, it is the Word of God. If the resurrection didn't happen, if those things written in the NT are "just" stories, meaning they are true, then the NT is not the Word of God, but just the embellished, fictional words of men.

Imo, the NT is not literally the Word of God, it is at best the words of me who were "inspired" by the Holy Spirit. This is in no way comparable to the Qur'an or the Writings of the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

AGAIN, here is the authoritative Baha'i position:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments​

But isn't that what Abdul Baha' and Baha'u'llah are saying? That their was a resurrection... a metaphorical, symbolic resurrection. Implying that is was a mistake by Christians to have ever taken the resurrection story literally.

Yes, that certainly is the implication, that there was never a bodily resurrection.

"Established"? "Through clear evidences"? That by "resurrection is meant the rise of the manifestation of God to proclaim his cause"? So he's saying all manifestation "resurrected?' Just that with Jesus his stupid followers made up a crazy story about Jesus dying and raising from the dead as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. So that's a false claim and false belief. Therefore, Christianity is a false religion

If you want to believe that Christianity is only about the bodily resurrection, yes, it would be a false religion, Imo.
But that is not all that Christianity is about. Although admittedly the resurrection has taken center stage, Christianity should be about the actual teachings of Jesus.

You and I probably wouldn't have any problem with that, but would Baha'u'llah? Yes, he would, because Christianity is an important part of the "progression" to his religion. Only problem is, Baha'is essentially don't believe anything about it... as believed and practiced by any and all Christian churches. Even if a Baha'i pretends to believe in the NT, that is not all that true either, since many of the things Baha'is believe to be false about Christian beliefs are based on what the "stories" say.... the number one thing being the coming back to life of Jesus. And, Jesus wasn't the only one that the NT says came back to life... and the other ones were not manifestations, so Baha'u'llah's definition of a "resurrection" doesn't work for them. Our explanation does, though... we say they are just stories.

Baha'u'llah would not have a problem with the Christian beliefs because He made clear that the Dispensation of Jesus Christ is over and we are now to turn to God's Manifestation for this Day, Baha'u'llah. One reason Baha'u'llah was sent was to correct all the false notions entertained by past generations which were recorded in their books. Not only has the Bible affected the beliefs of believers, it has affected the beliefs of agnostics and atheists, since they talk about Lucifer as it he really existed. Do you even realize the seriousness of these beliefs being allowed to linger, the harm it does to the human mind?

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination.” Gleanings, p. 171.

They only difference between you and I is you still believe that the Baha'i interpretations/explanations make sense. I don't. I think the Baha'is might as well place the gospel stories in with the stories about the Greek Gods and Goddesses and call them myth. And it's not just the Christian NT, but the whole Bible. Genesis Creation story? Myth. World wide flood? Myth. Parting the Seas? Myth. Jonah and the big fish? Myth. The Sun stopping for a whole day? Myth. The resurrection? Myth. And I would include the virgin birth and call it myth.

WHAT Baha'i interpretations/explanations do you think I believe make sense?

Of course it all could be true. But who, other than literally believing Christians, believes that? But to believe all these "stories" were meant to be taken metaphorically and not literally? No, I don't believe it. They were writing myths and legends about an all powerful God that did miraculous things for those who believed and trusted him. And did horrible things to those that worshipped false gods and did evil things.

But why does it MATTER to you what these stories were to be taken as metaphorically or literally? Clearly, you have decided that you do not believe any of these myths and legends ever literally happened, so why not just settle on that and move on to another subject?