Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

Dawnofhope · Feb 18, 2017

Thank you for a more thorough exposition of your beliefs. I have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

allfoak said:
It must take a lot of work to maintain one of these threads?

It does require work to manage a thread like this. I generally limit myself to one a week and during the weekends. They do require thoughtful consideration and response to what others are saying IMHO.

allfoak said:
One of the things that must be understood is that the greater part of us is our eternal souls.

Agreed

allfoak said:
We are all prodigal sons and daughters of our Father who is in heaven.

In a sense yes. Most of us go off the rails at some point in our lives. Hopefully like the prodigal son we find our way back home. For me that means reconnecting with our purpose in life and that is 'knowing and worshipping God'.

allfoak said:
It is through many lifetimes that we finally become perfected and return to the Father as Jesus did.

I would argue that our soul progress through the worlds of God once we physically die.

allfoak said:
The core message has been thoroughly gutted from the Bible.

Perhaps. However I'm good with making the best of what we do have. We also need to consider that Jesus told us He had many things to tell us, and He would send One who would teach us further. John 16:12-13

allfoak said:
For instance, these are quotes from the Gospel of Thomas:

I've reviewed the quotes you have provided and really have no trouble with any of them. It would come done to how we interpret these in light of other scripture, reason, world history, and experience.

allfoak said:
While to some degree this is true, you will still require the proper foundation to get past a certain point of understanding.

Jesus talked about having the proper foundation (Matthew 7:24-29) which brings us back to the original question. What is that foundation upon which we stand

allfoak said:
This one is from the Gospel of the Nazarenes:
Chapter 37
I post this one to show you how the message has even been removed from the OT.
This was once part of Job 2:9

Once again it comes down to interpretation of this mystical verse. The Kingdom of God within and without. Sounds like we are the temple and Jesus living within us. Then the kingdom on earth as prophesised in Isaiah. There's enough verses in the bible as it stands to support these conclusions.

Thank you for a more thorough response.

Dawnofhope · Feb 18, 2017

David T said:
The question is extremely biased and thus it isn't a question but a statement in form of a question. Both possible out comes rely on a mutual assumption.

Thanks for your response. I have tried to keep this open ended in the way the question is framed. How could it have been framed better? What's the mutual assumption?

allfoak · Feb 18, 2017

adrianhindes said:
It does require work to manage a thread like this. I generally limit myself to one a week and during the weekends. They do require thoughtful consideration and response to what others are saying IMHO.

Hope you got some rest.

adrianhindes said:
In a sense yes. Most of us go off the rails at some point in our lives. Hopefully like the prodigal son we find our way back home. For me that means reconnecting with our purpose in life and that is 'knowing and worshipping God'.

That is not what i meant.
Our eternal souls are prodigal sons and daughters.
Like the verse in Job 2:9 that isn't there anymore.

adrianhindes said:
I would argue that our soul progress through the worlds of God once we physically die.

The evidence points to something different.

adrianhindes said:
Perhaps. However I'm good with making the best of what we do have. We also need to consider that Jesus told us He had many things to tell us, and He would send One who would teach us further. John 16:12-13

In actuality i misspoke.
The obvious verses were taken out but because the ones doing the editing did not understand the language of the soul in which it was written it was impossible to destroy the message without banning the books altogether.

adrianhindes said:
Jesus talked about having the proper foundation (Matthew 7:24-29) which bring us back to the original question. What os that foundation upon which we stand

Christ and him crucified.

adrianhindes said:
Once again it comes down to interpretation of this mystical verse. The Kingdom of God within and without. Sounds like we are the temple and Jesus living within us. Then the kingdom on earth as prophesised in Isaiah. There's enough verses in the bible as it stands to support these conclusions.

If the foundation is Christ and him crucified and the Christ is within each of us, then the Christ is crucified afresh everyday for our sake on the four corners of the cross called the earth.

Dawnofhope · Feb 18, 2017

rusra02 said:
Historical fact, IMO. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) These men and women were so convinced of Jesus resurrection, they were willing to die rather than renounce their faith in Jesus Christ. The reality of Christ's literal resurrection as a spirit person, and how important this is for his followers, is masterfully explained in 1 Corinthians 15:12-58.

Thank you for your response.

I've covered this in a previous post

Perhaps the key verse is when St Paul writes if we don't have the resurrection then our teaching is in vain. 1 Corinthians 15:14

When considering St Paul's words we need to consider the context. For example earlier in the same chapter, Paul is saying Jesus had appeared to him as He appeared to all the apostles.

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1 Corinthians 15:7-8

However we know that Paul never saw Jesus. He heard Jesus speaking to Him on the road to Damascus Acts 9:1-7. This was his conversion experience.

This is an important clue that Paul is not speaking about the physically resurrected Christ but something else. So what else could Paul be referring to?

After Christ as crucified His disciples were troubled and agitated. They had lost sight of the spiritual Reality of Christ and in a sense had lost their faith for several days. His believers were few in number and they were greatly distressed.

The body of His faithful believers at the last supper was symbolised with bread and wine and it was this body that had become lifeless. However after three days His disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve their Lord, and resolved to spread HIs Divine teachings, putting His councils into practice, and arising to serve Him. The True Reality of Christ became manifest; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. Put another way, Christianity was like a lifeless body until the life and the Grace of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

I would argue that this is the true meaning of the resurrection of Christ. However Christians have not understood the symbols and interpreted it literally.

The main problem with a literal resurrection is that it contradicts science and reason. We have the ascension of Christ with a physical body rising into the sky or visible heaven that we know is filled with space and stars. It simply does not make sense.

Dawnofhope · Feb 18, 2017

Jenny Collins said:
It clearly says that he came back and appeared to people. What is it supposed to symbolize or mean, if it were an allegory?

Welcome to RF and thank you for your post. Please see my post #84

Repox · Feb 18, 2017

adrianhindes said:
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?

Here is what I think happened. God, the Old Testament Lord, came into the world as a man (Jesus) and preached about Jewish laws, customs, and moral issues, all of which was part of Jewish tradition found in Jewish holy books. Jesus was not the son of God, Jesus was God. A big problem for Jesus (God) was his proclamation of divinity and references to “the kingdom of God.” By exposing his divinity, Jesus threatened Emperor Tiberius of Roman. Like other Roman Emperors, Romans regarded Tiberius as divine; he was god of the Roman world. No one could threaten or question his divinity. Jews were not responsible for the death of Jesus; Roman soldiers murdered him. We can imagine what happened when Emperor Tiberius got world of Jesus, a Jewish wise man, making statements about his divinity. Moreover, Jesus’ statements made about the kingdom of God would surely anger Tiberius, who considered the Roman Empire to be his holy kingdom. Subsequently, the Roman army received orders to execute Jesus.

The method by which Roman soldiers carried out their orders is not a pretty picture. It does not fit the Jesus myth of Christian martyrdom on the cross, followed by a spectacular resurrection. According to my dream, a husky Roman soldier stood over Jesus on his knees beating him with his fists. As the soldier struck Jesus repeatedly in the face, a Roman officer stood nearby watching. Thereafter, Jesus lay on the ground. The story in Revelation 11 about the two witnesses describes events as follows, “Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes from the abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them.” (Rev. 11:7). The two witnesses are the duality of God. It would not have been difficult for Satan to possess Roman soldiers and make them attack and murder Jesus. They had already received orders to execute Jesus.

The soldiers did not put the body of Jesus in a tomb. He lay on the ground dead for about three days and one half days before ascending into heaven. (Rev. 11:8-9) For leaders of the new Jesus movement, the Roman murder of Jesus and disrespect for the body would not be a pleasant or appealing story; it had no romantic twists or glorious moments. Subsequently, the story was revised.

Cephus · Feb 18, 2017

adrianhindes said:
Do you think the myth may have any meaning?

Meaning to whom? People can take meaning in anything they like. What it doesn't have is any reality. It's just made up nonsense.

CG Didymus · Feb 18, 2017

rusra02 said:
Historical fact, IMO. There were hundreds of eyewitnesses to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) These men and women were so convinced of Jesus resurrection, they were willing to die rather than renounce their faith in Jesus Christ. The reality of Christ's literal resurrection as a spirit person, and how important this is for his followers, is masterfully explained in 1 Corinthians 15:12-58.

Other religious views have to have another explanation of the resurrection. Early Christians had various views. Those that didn't have the view that Jesus was crucified, died and then rose again were considered heretics. So where did this "orthodox" view come from? It has to be the NT. Did Peter and Paul and the gospel writers ever write anything to make the resurrection sound like an allegory? No. It is easy to question and doubt? Yes, very much so. Did the writers try and cover their bases in the things they said? It seems so to me. Paul says that if Christ hasn't risen then Christians should be the most pitied.

I've asked this of the Baha'is before. If the Baha'is are right, then, from the beginning, the orthodox teaching of the NT and Christ' resurrection is wrong. They never taught the "real" story, that the resurrection was an allegory, and they never knew it was only an allegory. All those early Christians burned, thrown to lions, and crucified? All for an allegory?

If the "real" truth from God was that all religions are one, then too bad Jesus didn't say so and make that clear? He could have said that the Jewish God and the Roman gods are in "essence" one. And that later Mohammad would come and then Baha'u'llah and their religions are all one also. It could have saved a lot of trouble. So, I think, either the Baha'is are wrong or the writers of the NT got it wrong right from the start. No allegory, the NT is either embellished, made up stuff that led people to believe Jesus is God and rose from the dead... or maybe, just maybe, it is what really happened.

james bond · Feb 18, 2017

adrianhindes said:
The main problem with a literal resurrection is that it contradicts science and reason. We have the ascension of Christ with a physical body rising into the sky or visible heaven that we know is filled with space and stars. It simply does not make sense.

This is a different issue than just worldview. One cannot be closed minded to what happened as a miracle to just state science and reason would prohibit. The Bible isn't a science book, but science does back up the Bible. One of the first things I, as a Christian (2012), didn't understand about the Bible were the listing of people who lived incredibly long as historical reference. I said how could that be? Later, I found out that these ancient people lived longer back then. They were more perfect than us. They weren't exposed to cosmic rays such as the people after Noah was. Today, we can live to around 120, not 800 or 900 years old. Christian scientists were the ones who created science in order to honor God. So, creationists today have scientists who can explain what happened. The Resurrection was a miracle and phophesized to happen. Furthermore, science should be open-minded. That is why we have hypothesis and theories. Science was taken over by atheist scientists in the 1800s and that is who rules today. Today, science will not accept God, the supernatural, immaterialism or the Bible based science. The USG even backs them up. Creation scientists do not have a voice in this and have formed their own peer-reviews as creation scientists. Through them, I've found that the truth is indeed stranger than fiction. I've compared evolution vs creationism and found young earth creation is the truth and better explains our world.

Moreover, there are many things that people including the current Pope and Christians do not understand because of today's evolution. They've been terribly mislead.

David T · Feb 18, 2017

adrianhindes said:
Thanks for your response. I have tried to keep this open ended in the way the question is framed. How could it have been framed better? What's the mutual assumption?

I am not sure one can actually. I could say literal but that has serious problems, I could say metaphor, symbolism and that too has problems. It's an interesting problem that the question itself is a part of. I actually know the correct answer but saying it is then part of the problem with your original question. It's like saying no amount of information can give anther person the understanding needed to actually taste an orange. I can describe what an orange tastes like but it's not actually experiencing the tasting of it. Here is the weird part of this text to me, the writers were full aware of this. It's more complex, clearer, and more grounded than contemporary psychology and cognitive science imterpersonally. That's actually in contrast to contemporary thinking, on the non believer side of the coin as well as on the side of the believer side of the coin. Religion has a lot of theological PHDs as well as science does. The writers aren't believers or non believers they have a reference point outside where they are standing as they ask and write, which causes the question to arrise in the first place. You have to ask is Paul insane in his road to Damascus experience? Or does he write in a certain way in an attempt to convey The realness of experience in which he is talking about becuase He conveys it perfectly. What is insanity experiencing? And what happens if someone conveys that experience but clearly they are not insane? Karl jung was someone who conveyed a lot like what is being conveyed in Paul's road to Damascus experience. Is john Muir literal or metaphorical, symbolic, in his writings? The tricky part of art at the end of the day!!

Deeje · Feb 18, 2017

adrianhindes said:
Its clear as crystal to those who don't want to think too long and hard. I'm sure the belief in earth being the centre of the universe was clear as crystal to Christians for 1,000 years. Should we give them all a pat on the back because they had faith and didn't questions? We should investigate the realities of scripture in light of science and reason? Your argument is essentially someone who asks questions doesn't have faith.

We are no longer living in the times of ignorance though, are we? Science has confirmed much of scripture, contrary to popular belief. What we reject is not true science, but the unproven ideas of men who seem bent on giving credit to the creation for its own existence, rather that to the Master Designer of it all.

As Paul said..."even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:25)

I would humbly encourage you to consider that the Jehovah witnesses interpretation of the book of revelation has led to considerable criticism from the wider Christian community. I'm certain you know this.

I am sure that if there was internet in Jesus' day, he too would have been the brunt of 'considerable criticism by the wider Jewish community'. It was bad enough locally......word spread and the false accusations began. The people went from welcoming an incoming King, to crying out for his execution in the short space of a week. I wonder how that happened?

Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

From your quoted source.....
"Jehovah's Witnesses have attracted criticism from mainstream Christianity, members of the medical community, former members and commentators over their beliefs and practices. The religion has been accused of doctrinal inconsistency and reversals, failed predictions, mistranslation of the Bible, harsh treatment of former members and autocratic and coercive leadership. Criticism has also focused on their rejection of blood transfusions, particularly in life-threatening medical situations, and claims that they have failed to report cases of sexual abuse to the authorities. Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and some have also been disputed by courts and religious scholars."

When you break down the criticism, you can see that we are no part of "mainstream Christianity" because we realized that "mainstream" doesn't mean correct. On thorough investigation we came to understand that "Christianity" had gone astray in much the same way that Judaism did....adopting all manner of 'man-made traditions' led the "church" away from Christ. (Acts 20:29, 30)
This is why we believe that at the judgment, Christ reaffirms that he has "never" recognized these ones as his own. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Being at odds with mainstream beliefs was what got Jesus out of favor with the Pharisees. He did not hesitate to expose their hypocrisy. We make no apology for exposing the errors in Christendom's teachings, because how else are people to know that they should question everything they have been taught.
How many stuck to their comfort zone and ignored Jesus' teachings? The majority will do the same in this time of the end. (Matthew 24:37-39)

The medical community as you know, have a problem with our stance on blood transfusions, but as I have already demonstrated to you, blood transfusions are not the "life saving" procedure that many have claimed them to be. Medical professionals do not like to be told that they are wrong either....even when other medical professionals tell them.
Patient Blood Management (PBM) | National Blood Authority

"Former members" who have been "disfellowshipped" for unchristian conduct were scripturally expelled from the congregation. (1 Corinthians 5:13-19) The Biblical instructions, though not 'politically correct', are scripturally correct. Pride again will not allow some people to admit to wrongdoing. There is no "autocratic or coercive leadership"....there is strong spiritual leadership from duly appointed shepherds whose job it is to see that the congregations are kept "clean" and united. There is no room for "I want to do my own thing" in the ranks of Jehovah's people.....we all do what Jehovah wants us to do, regardless of what any human thinks about it.

The "failure to report cases of sexual abuse to authorities" has been a difficult one for many reasons. Firstly, scripturally a crime has to be witnessed. (Matthew 18:15-17) Cases of sexual abuse are usually one person's word over another's, so if there is no evidence, our brothers are in a difficult position. They are not the police and if a crime has been committed, then there is encouragement to take the matter to the proper authorities.

Secondly, in times past, the legal system was a minefield of legal scrutiny that often left victims more traumatized than the original assault. Today we have very strong child protection policies and a much more gentle legal approach.

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Deuteronomy 18:22

Understanding that these "predictions" were not prophesies in themselves, but an attempt to establish a timeframe for just one prophesy, will answer that accusation. I have been a JW for over 40 years and I believe that the last time we attempted to suggest a timeframe for the coming of the Kingdom was 1975. (Over 40 years ago) It was a suggestion, made on the basis of hope that the conditions in the world might soon yield to the rulership of God's Kingdom. It gave us hope and carried us through, "keeping on the watch" just as the scriptures said. (Hebrews 6:17-20; Matthew 24:42-44)

Lets do some research about that one:

Judaism 101: Olam Ha-Ba: The Afterlife

Clearly a diverse range of thoughts within Judaism regarding an after life.

Adrian, are you suggesting that Judaism 101 is going to give you information on what the ancients believed about life and death? Wasn't Jesus' condemnation of Judaism enough for you to realize that they had lost the plot long before Jesus arrived in the scene as Messiah? Why do you think he could say with such conviction....
Matthew 23:37-39:
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”

Have the Jews ever blessed the name of the one who came in the name of their God? Are they likely to any time soon?

Read Solomon's words at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10 to see what the ancients believed about "sheol".

I don't know Deeje. I wasn't there and nor were you. I know that God has the power to bring someone to life. If it happened I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem with Jesus rising from the dead is that he rose up to heaven (in the sky) and there's no heaven in the sky. We need to understand the deeper meanings behind the miracles rather than taking scripture literally.

You say such strange contradictory things at times adrianhindes...."there's no heaven in the sky"?....How do you know that?
Heaven is where Jesus said his Father dwells......he returned there to prepare a place for his disciples (John 14:1-4)....it is an actual locality, invisible to mortal eyes. One needs a spiritual body to exist in God's presence.

If you use that argument you are accusing Christianity of being a pagan religion? I don't think the Christians will be too pleased to hear the Jehovah witnesses calling them pagans.

Christianity on the Afterlife - ReligionFacts

Christendom doesn't have a good thing to say about JW's...period. (John 15:18-21)
Do we accuse them of being a pagan religion?
I think its more correct to say that they have adopted many pagan ideas and practices. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) That is not news to them though; they already know that a lot of what they practice finds no support in the scriptures....it doesn't seem to matter to them. It matters to God though.

At least with Gods' kingdom on earth that the Baha'is are talking about you can actually demonstrate the connections with apocalyptic verses. With the JW kingdom we have absolutely no way of telling whether its real or imagination. Logic and its track record with predicting world events strongly suggests imagination.

That is a matter of interpretation, isn't it? How real was the Kingdom to Christ's first disciples? Could they see it? Did they anticipate its benefits? Absolutely! Its King was standing right in front of them as the best possible ruler of mankind, yet they had to watch him be murdered and wait for God to enlighten them about the future as to how that Kingdom was going to "come" and how God's will was going to be done "on earth as it is in heaven". No one died disappointed because they understood that death would not come between them and their Lord. He had to power to conquer death as they saw with their own eyes.

As Paul said in 1 Thessalonian 4:15-16....
"For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first."

I think you will be waiting a long time to see your prophecies from the book of revelation fulfilled.

Maybe...or maybe not. We have waited this long and the events of late are making a lot of people very nervous about the future. Time will tell I guess....won't it?

Dawnofhope · Feb 19, 2017

Thank you for your responses. Busy day for me but in some ways you have touched me with your words. I have been thinking who is this person somewhere in another part of the world. You speak from the heart so I like that.

Carlita said:
Remember, all the disciples and everyone who believed in Christ always looked for physical signs that coincide with their faith: Walking on water. Making water into wine. Raising the dead. (Moses) Parting the sea. Things like that.

In a sense I've tended to look at the meaning and the spiritual. The physical aspect to the story provides the clarity but its not the main concern. So with the miracles, when Jesus heals a blind man, I think through His teachings I go from being spiritual blind to having spiritual insight. Perhaps someone two thousand years ago had the good fortune to have had his sight restored as God who is omnipotent has this power. However the main concern is the millions of people like me who have been spiritually healed through His teachings and the example of His life. For that I'm eternally grateful.

Carlita said:
The spiritual and physical go together. One isn't above the other.

When Jesus walked on water He was teaching us that we can rise above our lower nature and have our being in the heavenly realm. The physical exists but it is temporal for our soul is eternal whereas our bodies are not.

Carlita said:
Just because it is jesus christ and christianity doesn't exclude the nature of many religions and their ties to using physical things as part of or representing spiritual concepts or "truths."

I don't think its about one or the other. I call that dichotomous thinking. Its both but we need to have discernment otherwise we won't be walking above the water but drowning in a mire of superstition and dogma. I make no apologies for saying this because Jesus Christ is just as much my saviour as He is to the Christians. I experience Him too. Am I not allowed a voice? Should I be silent?

Carlita said:
spiritually but not physically? For example, and everyone is different, my mother can say I love you a thousand times. She can even try to teleport the sentence. If she doesn't hug me or display love beyond getting me "stuff" then that I-love-you doesn't mean much. People need to see things not be in the middle of nowhere thinking the spiritual is all they need.

We all need love and that is expressed in so many different ways. My mother did not need to rise from the dead physically to show her love for me, and I don't believe Jesus did either. I see no connection between love and ascending into the physical sky. But that's culture again where we all see through our own eyes.

Carlita said:
I'm not Catholic because I do not practice. I find it very rude to practice without going to confession first. So Catholic Pagan is inappropriate since I don't practice the Christian faith. I believe that if you are going to believe in something you are to practice as well. You can't "understand completely" another religion unless you have not only walked in their shoes but if you are to support it you should also be walking in their shoes. I can only tell you what I studied and experienced.

I hope I did not offend you with that. It certainly is not my intention to offend anyone. In truth of the all those that have taken time to respond on this post you have excelled everyone in your passion for a belief in a physically resurrected Christ. You may not see yourself as Catholic or Christian and say it has just left a dent, but it appears profoundly interwoven with your being. You may feel 90% pagan and 10% Christian but you appear 90% Christian to my eyes. That's a positive because I love Christ and I love Christians. I don't have a deep connection with paganism but had a few years living in seclusion around nature when younger that helps me with that.

Carlita said:
That is the problem there. Jesus rose in flesh and spirit. That is a christian belief. You can see it differently because you see it through different eyes; and, that doesn't change what christians believe.

Its fine that we all see through our eyes. The problem is when we can't see our own filters and lenses. Worse when we are so disconnected from our humanity that we lack empathy and compassion for others.

Carlita said:
That is like my once being a Bahai (for example), chose to be pagan, then come back with something Bahallauh never talk (say manifestations) because pretending that my religion says otherwise. So I use my religion to clarify the Bahai religion. That is wrong and inappropriate in my opinion.

I don't know why you do it?

That is what Jesus and the Christians did. He brought a new understanding to the Hebrew Bible. It clearly aggravated many of His fellow Jews and led to His crucifixion. The Christians did the same thing. Were they right to have done it? Change was needed then. It is needed now.

Carlita said:
Instead of looking at it through the Bab's eyes, since Christians don't believe in him, you can do two things, use objective proof (maybe give proof that his body desecrated in the tomb) or religious proof (maybe proof from scripture that he did not rise regardless the scripture I posted that he did). Any other religious source cannot support your argument.

The purpose of sharing the Bab's story was to demonstrate how much there was at stake for both those who loved and hated the Bab. Having access to His physical body was important for His followers and denying access the agenda for is enemies. I have no doubt that Jesus' remains are on the earth for flesh does not inherit the kingdom of God, and Heaven is not up in the sky where Jesus presumably ascended.

Carlita said:
Yes and Christians are the only ones that can speak the validity of their own faiths not you and not myself.

We each have our experiences in this life for certain. However those experiences can both illuminate or cloud what Jesus really taught and did. So my concern is to look at the gospels afresh. The Hebrew bible belongs just as much to the Christians as the Jews. Likewise the Bible belongs to the Baha'is to.

Carlita said:
@adrianhindes Here is another good scripture. It seems like Corinthians speaks of the bodily resurrection. It also speaks that some people disbelieve in the bodily resurrection and consequently are told they have little faith or their faith is distorted.

1 Corinthians 15:35-44

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

This certainly is THE chapter where it all comes together or unravels depending on how you feel about Paul comparing his 'non-resurrection' experiences to the others allegedly resurrection experiences.

Carlita said:
But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

This demonstrate for me your literary gift! You really are a creative expressionist! Thank you for taking the time to engage with this thread.

Carlita said:
Everything interconnects. If you, as an ex-christian have literally gone through jesus' Passion, you'd understand that at minimum.

Is this not questioning the authenticity and passion of my experience as a believer in Christ or is that negated because I don't take everything I read at face value?

Carlita said:
My issue with your views, just as with christians, is dictating the truth of someone else's faith by their faith. That's a complete insult to the people who actually practice and still live the faith and know more in continuous growth and practice than I, you, and any other non-christian will know.

I do wonder if I've offended or insulted you? Once again no offence intended. You are certainty a staunch Christian apologist whether you know it or not. That's a good thing. Maybe your not a Catholic but the Catholics have been a friend to me at times when I needed it the most. This thread on the resurrection is a good example.

Dawnofhope · Feb 19, 2017

james bond said:
This is a different issue than just worldview. One cannot be closed minded to what happened as a miracle to just state science and reason would prohibit.

Its the same issue actually. Science should inform our world view just as much as religion does. I have no problem with God's omnipotence and power. Having Jesus ascending into the heavenly realm in the sky fits the medieval view of Christianity but doesn't work anymore as our worldview is based more on science. Do you believe in Heaven being in outer space?

james bond said:
So, creationists today have scientists who can explain what happened.

The last time I talked to a creationist and asked about dinosaurs, he explained that the writers of the Flintstones were pretty much spot on!

loverofhumanity · Feb 19, 2017

When Christ returned He stated that Christians were wrong about the Resurrection and there was never any such thing as a bodily resurrection.

“the terms sovereignty, wealth, life, death, judgment and resurrection, spoken of by the scriptures of old, are not what this generation hath conceived and vainly imagined”

Bahá’u’lláh.

loverofhumanity · Feb 19, 2017

adrianhindes said:
Its the same issue actually. Science should inform our world view just as much as religion does. I have no problem with God's omnipotence and power. Having Jesus ascending into the heavenly realm in the sky fits the medieval view of Christianity but doesn't work anymore as our worldview is based more on science. Do you believe in Heaven being in outer space?

The last time I talked to a creationist and asked about dinosaurs, he explained that the writers of the Flintstones were pretty much spot on!

Loved watching the Flintstones. Lol

loverofhumanity · Feb 19, 2017

John 3:13 is another verse which proves the Resurrection of Jesus was absolutely spiritual not physical.

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Let's look at this closely. Jesus was walking on the earth in bodily form yet He 'was in heaven" at the same time. Was He floating? No.

It was His spiritual condition or state just like the resurrection. His Body had died but the Son of Man, His Spirit was what resurrected nothing else.

The visions of Jesus eating and showing His pierced Hands and so on were just visions. Like you dream you fly but when you wake up you are still in bed. Yet it feels real!!!

The true miracle of Jesus was He changed hearts. He transformed sinners into saints. Any magician today can walk on water and even cpr brings back the dead only that we physically will die again so there's nothing miraculous about healing a sick person because he will die again but transforming sinners into saints is a feat no one can do and that is what Jesus should be remembered for.

Unveiled Artist · Feb 19, 2017

adrianhindes said:
In a sense I've tended to look at the meaning and the spiritual. The physical aspect to the story provides the clarity but its not the main concern. So with the miracles, when Jesus heals a blind man, ...

The physical is the main concern. If it were not, god could have just saved everyone without laying a foot on the earth.

adrianhindes said:
When Jesus walked on water He was teaching us that we can rise above oI gur lower nature and have our being in the heavenly realm. The physical exists but it is temporal for our soul is eternal whereas our bodies are not.

That doesn't make sense. Physical exist always. From jesus coming to earth (human representation of a invisible god). Communion is physical.

It's like that example I gave posts back. If you were in the middle of an intersection with cars flying back and forth, I'm assuming if the physical isn't important, you'd close your eyes and try to spiritually move yourself from the traffic. Of course, once you actually walk out of the street, it's temporary and it may teach a lesson but that does not mean the physical just disappears. You still needed the actual walking as a part of the lesson.

adrianhindes said:
I don't think its about one or the other. I call that dichotomous thinking. Its both but we need to have discernment otherwise we won't be walking above the water but drowning in a mire of superstition and dogma. I make no apologies for saying this because Jesus Christ is just as much my saviour as He is to the Christians. I experience Him too. Am I not allowed a voice? Should I be silent?

The bible is full of unjustified beliefs (superstition). It's not all backed up by science. It doesn't need to be even though people, even christians, try to make it to justify it's validity. If jesus saw that, he'd probably say something like "you search the scriptures as if they have eternal life; but even the scriptures testify on my behalf." He's not saying throw away the physical scriptures it just means you (people in general) are using it to find jesus.

You need both. You need the bible, jesus words. You need faith, jesus Word. You need the physical and the spiritual.

I have to be honest, jesus was never my savior. I saw it from a different perspective that wasn't inline with the Church and scripture. I don't understand how you believe in both religions without saying you are a christian (a follower of christ) as well as a Bahai. I know it's just a word but if you support christianity a lot, and have no problem saying that jesus is your savior, are you christian? If not, what beliefs make you not a christian?

adrianhindes said:
We all need love and that is expressed in so many different ways. My mother did not need to rise from the dead physically to show her love for me, and I don't believe Jesus did either. I see no connection between love and ascending into the physical sky. But that's culture again where we all see through our own eyes.

Well, its like this: Saying "I love you" is-->Spirit rising only
Giving only a hug: Body rising only
What most christians belief: Spirit and body rising only.

Here is a diagram I gave Quin on a completely different topic.

The second one is how I see you're viewing it. Rock is jesus body and spirit is the spirit of god. So, if the body is temporary, then only the spirit rises not the flesh.

Christianity teaches the third circle. You can't separate the body from the spirit because in scripture it says when you go to heaven you will get new bodies. You can't get new bodies if you have just left your old one behind. That example of rising in body had to be physical because all throughout scripture, physical supported the spiritual. If jesus told people "I can raise the dead" they'd look at him funny. If he actually did it, lesson or not, that action was needed for the disciples to understand what the lesson mean not just in spirit but in their noggin too. We are no different. I just find the "spiritual and not religious" or "symbolism not literalism" a bit new and annoying. A lot of people actually do believe that Orishas are in their given statues and you can't have one without the other. Christianity is no different.

adrianhindes said:
I hope I did not offend you with that. It certainly is not my intention to offend anyone. In truth of the all those that have taken time to respond on this post you have excelled everyone in your passion for a belief in a physically resurrected Christ. You may not see yourself as Catholic or Christian and say it has just left a dent, but it appears profoundly interwoven with your being. You may feel 90% pagan and 10% Christian but you appear 90% Christian to my eyes. That's a positive because I love Christ and I love Christians...

When you are christian, you love christ with all your being. You believe that he has saved you. You repent to him for your misdeeds to get back in union with his father. You understand him more via scripture, experiences, and life itself. You commune with people of like mind, and you believe the lessons or facts in scripture are real. It isn't just taking the sacraments and believing in christ. I'm christian by confirmation.

You have to be christian by all the rest above. I don't have that experience of loving christ, he's my savior, and all of that. I just have Catholic view of experiencing the sacraments and what Im telling you is from scripture not from my belief. In my belief, there is no god. Jesus isn't different than you and I. I don't place people, things, gods, etc on a pedestal. (Which would get me killed back in the day).

If paganism didn't have so much new-age mess put to it, I could easily defend it but since we are so broad and many pagans are Pagans who take up European faiths, which I don't, there is nothing more I can say about the connect but by name. When you have a religion, basically all "naming" ceases. It becomes life.

adrianhindes said:
Its fine that we all see through our eyes. The problem is when we can't see our own filters and lenses. Worse when we are so disconnected from our humanity that we lack empathy and compassion for others.

Can you take the lens from your eyes to see the validity of other people's religions that you have not experienced? For example, can you see the validity of Paganism if a Pagan actually talked to you about his or her religion opposed to your religion?

adrianhindes said:
That is what Jesus and the Christians did. He brought a new understanding to the Hebrew Bible. It clearly aggravated many of His fellow Jews and led to His crucifixion. The Christians did the same thing. Were they right to have done it? Change was needed then. It is needed now.

It's wrong and doing that is what got many people killed. Jesus using Hebrew scriptures to support his own faith did not go well with the Jews. I disagree with any religion whose belief incorporates another belief system to justify its own as valid. That's what Christianity does with the OT and NT debate. Nichiren Buddhism does it as well. Just from talking with Bahai here, there is a pattern with you all too. It's a pet peeve because I live around native religions that have had their religion broke in pieces because of it. It's one thing to have a history of gradual mixing of religions its a a whole other thing to have separate religions, mix the two, and say they one validates the other. Bothers the mess out of me.

adrianhindes said:
The purpose of sharing the Bab's story was to demonstrate how much there was at stake for both those who loved and hated the Bab. Having access to His physical body was important for His followers and denying access the agenda for is enemies. I have no doubt that Jesus' remains are on the earth for flesh does not inherit the kingdom of God, and Heaven is not up in the sky where Jesus presumably ascended.

Jesus rose in the flesh for his flesh to transform into a new body to sit next to his father in heaven. If you took his body away, he and christians wouldn't have a new body. I think you're earing more towards JW side. Mainstream christianity is different.

adrianhindes said:
We each have our experiences in this life for certain. However those experiences can both illuminate or cloud what Jesus really taught and did. So my concern is to look at the gospels afresh. The Hebrew bible belongs just as much to the Christians as the Jews. Likewise the Bible belongs to the Baha'is to.

adrianhindes said:
This certainly is THE chapter where it all comes together or unravels depending on how you feel about Paul comparing his 'non-resurrection' experiences to the others allegedly resurrection experiences.

It doesn't need to be complicated. If someone needs to "die in christ" there needs to be a physical christ to die in order for him to die in spirit. You have to read beyond the authors and just get the concepts at least. If you have physical jesus live. Physical jesus die. You have physical jesus resurrection. Once you have all three, jesus flesh (christian's sin) sheds and turns into a new body purified at the right side of his father. Christians are promised the same thing when they die, they will rise in body and spirit and be transformed based on their needs (judgement or acceptance) with new bodies. As for heaven, Id have to read revelations a twentieth time to understand it. Too many analogies to get the point of the message and compare it to the meat/content/physical part of it.

adrianhindes said:
Is this not questioning the authenticity and passion of my experience as a believer in Christ or is that negated because I don't take everything I read at face value?

I see a Christian as someone who has gone through jesus life, death, and resurrection. They have taken all the sacraments of christ and they are in-line with his body in spirit and in flesh. That christian does not believe dogma/religion as a hindrance of their faith but every denomination I came across, their dogma/religion supports their faith. I see a christian who at least knows the core of their faith regardless if it's influenced by denominational perspectives. And from there, if, for example, if I were actually christian, that person who has experienced all of this would know they can't stray away from truth. If I know two and two is four and went through arithmetic class to show me this, I can't deny it anymore. Regardless of where I go, what religion I practice, the equation is still the same. For me, that was not the case. I didn't wait as the priest told me to so I don't believe in the equation I'm just a christian by sacrament.

I do raise a eyebrow when you say you believe in christian teachings, was a christian, and are a Bahai. How can you have been an ex-christian if you still believe in its teachings and you are supporting your belief by the words of your faith?

adrianhindes said:
I do wonder if I've offended or insulted you? Once again no offence intended. You are certainty a staunch Christian apologist whether you know it or not. That's a good thing. Maybe your not a Catholic but the Catholics have been a friend to me at times when I needed it the most. This thread on the resurrection is a good example.

I'm Catholic by sacrament not by action.

james bond · Feb 19, 2017

adrianhindes said:
Its the same issue actually. Science should inform our world view just as much as religion does. I have no problem with God's omnipotence and power. Having Jesus ascending into the heavenly realm in the sky fits the medieval view of Christianity but doesn't work anymore as our worldview is based more on science. Do you believe in Heaven being in outer space?

The last time I talked to a creationist and asked about dinosaurs, he explained that the writers of the Flintstones were pretty much spot on!

Again, you asked a question but aren't listening to the answers. You've already made up your mind, and just want to hear what you want to hear. What you are listening to is what the liberal media such as HuffPo brainwashed you into believing. If you understand science, and believe in science while you are living, then we know science was very wrong in the past. We had a generation who believed in the Piltdown Man that turned out to be fake. We had multiple generations who believed in an eternal universe or Steady State Theory. Today, we have people who believe in GM products and that mutation is good. Many will just end up shortening their lives.

CG Didymus · Feb 19, 2017

adrianhindes said:
Thank you for your response.

I've covered this in a previous post

Perhaps the key verse is when St Paul writes if we don't have the resurrection then our teaching is in vain. 1 Corinthians 15:14

When considering St Paul's words we need to consider the context. For example earlier in the same chapter, Paul is saying Jesus had appeared to him as He appeared to all the apostles.

"Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." 1 Corinthians 15:7-8

However we know that Paul never saw Jesus. He heard Jesus speaking to Him on the road to Damascus Acts 9:1-7. This was his conversion experience.

This is an important clue that Paul is not speaking about the physically resurrected Christ but something else. So what else could Paul be referring to?

After Christ as crucified His disciples were troubled and agitated. They had lost sight of the spiritual Reality of Christ and in a sense had lost their faith for several days. His believers were few in number and they were greatly distressed.

The body of His faithful believers at the last supper was symbolised with bread and wine and it was this body that had become lifeless. However after three days His disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve their Lord, and resolved to spread HIs Divine teachings, putting His councils into practice, and arising to serve Him. The True Reality of Christ became manifest; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. Put another way, Christianity was like a lifeless body until the life and the Grace of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

I would argue that this is the true meaning of the resurrection of Christ. However Christians have not understood the symbols and interpreted it literally.

The main problem with a literal resurrection is that it contradicts science and reason. We have the ascension of Christ with a physical body rising into the sky or visible heaven that we know is filled with space and stars. It simply does not make sense.

Sorry, I still don't get it. Science and reason? Yet, you believe Jesus was virgin born? After 3 days the disciples started teaching and brought life to Jesus' message? No, it wasn't until Pentecost when the supposed "Helper" the "Holy Spirit" descended on them. But you believe that the "Spirit of Truth" that was to come was Baha'u'llah almost 2000 years later.

The other thing is that Jesus' followers were all down in the dumps until 3 days later. Why? Because the tomb was empty. Yes, an empty tomb, no body. Where did Jesus' body go? I'm sure you have an allegorical explanation for this too, but the NT writers made it sound like it was Jesus back from the dead. He said to one of them to touch him, that he was not a spirit... that he was flesh and bone? How did you wiggle out of that? And speaking of wiggling, since Baha'is believe Islam is also the truth, do you believe their explanation of Jesus' death and resurrection?

Of course he appears and disappears, walks through walls, and floats off into the sky, but before the resurrection he walked on water, so his body wasn't ever a "normal" physical body. Or, it's a little mythology thrown in. Which to me makes more sense. Did he heal the sick, raise the dead and all the other "miracles"? Or, is it gospel writers adding some things to spice up the story? Why more believable to me. But to believe they wrote the gospels as if they were real events, then Baha'is come along and say those things were all allegory? That doesn't make sense to me.

oldbadger · Feb 19, 2017

adrianhindes said:
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?

There is even doubt that Jesusactually died on the cross.
Pilot may not have wanted Jesus dead, and arranged with Joseph of A to get him down and to care.

There is doubt that Jesus was actually crucified. Pilot may have kept Jesus in safety, and whipped Jesus Son of the Father (the other convict mentioned) until his features were distorted by blood (hence the thorn crown) and executed him instead.

There is a legend that Jesus was 'got away' to Gaul with Magdalene.

There is a legend that Jesus got away to India, where he eventually died. This is possible because he was seen in Galilee on his way North, out of Israel.

Any of these legends are possible. But the resurrection? That is just a myth!

Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Alchemist

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Truth Seeker

Relentlessly Rational

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Avid Bible Student

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i

We are all the leaves of one tree

We are all the leaves of one tree

We are all the leaves of one tree

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Skanky Old Mongrel!