• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

  • To record historical events

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • To portray a theological narrative

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • To write a mythological story

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • A combination of history, theology and/or mythology

    Votes: 9 27.3%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 3.0%
  • This poll does not reflect my thinking

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Something else - please feel free to explain

    Votes: 5 15.2%

  • Total voters
    33

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The Bible is the most read and studied book on the planet. We are on a religious forum that has its mission statement about providing a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another. Do you think the resurrection of Christ is a sensitive and delicate topic?
Here are a few reasons for me to think so: Belief in and verbal confession of the resurrection is required weekly in hundreds of thousands of churches, and this must be not just any confession but an endorsement of a particular view of resurrection. That makes it sensitive. Another reason is that the gospels are typically put forward as a message from God to us, explaining after the fact what actually happened. Any disagreement at all with this is considered an attack upon the clergy, a denial of Christianity, a denial of belief; and you are not accepted because of it. Third, parents often seem like they cannot cope with deaths and disfigurements of their children, and when they are involved its not merely a sensitive subject but an overwhelming subject. Some cannot broach discussion of anything but agreement with their own conceptions about it. Churches have split over discussions about what happens to unbaptized or unchristened children when they die. It is sensitive.

I have a friend who after converting to Christianity studied the book of Leviticus. It isn’t the book I would expect a new Christian to study in the first instance. However the approach has given her the foundation to understand the NT. She is one of the most knowledgeable and dedicated Christians I have come across.

So I agree that to understand the Gospel accounts we need to understand Judaism and the milieu and exigencies of the Christian communities in the first century.
Cool.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I checked off "I don't know" because I don't know, and I have doubts that anyone can know even though they may think they know.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
There are some 3rd day prophecies that have regularly been seen as referring to Jesus.
Jesus used the Jonah analogy (3 days and night in the fish)
Hosea 6:2 is also used and it can be seen as a possible source.
Recently I found a couple more, which seem likely suspects also.
When Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, his firstborn, they left the servant and travelled 3 days to the place of sacrifice before it was revealed that Isaac was not the sacrifice and that the Lord would provide a sacrifice. Thus Isaac was dead in Abraham's eyes for 3 days and sort of came back to life after that.
There is another one with Noah. We know that Baptism is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Also Peter compares the water of baptism to the flood.
1Peter 3:19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ............
Anyway I have heard from some that that the day the ark came to rest on Mt Ararat was the same date that Jesus rose, the 17th day of the 7th month (which it seems was changed to the fist month during the Exodus and Passover was on the 14th day of the first month and so Jesus rose on the 17th day of the first month)
Below is what I found at this site: Genesis Chapter 8 Bible Study: The Mystery of the 17th!
It gives a couple more examples. I'm not really sure about their accuracy but they are interesting.
The Mystery of the 17th

Genesis 8:1-4 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down , and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat .

Now I want to draw your attention to the day that the ark first touched ground again. We read above that after the waters had receded, the ark touched down on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th of the 7th month. That is pretty amazing don't you think? It's the 17th! Not with me? Ok, let's explore this a bit further.

We said at the start of the study that the ark is a picture of baptism. In going down through the waters and coming back out it is a picture of death and resurrection. With that in mind it makes it extraordinary that the day that the ark touched the earth again is on the 17th of the 7th. You see, in Exodus 12:1 the Lord changed the Israelite's calendar. What had been the 7th month since creation was now to become their 1st month. To this day the Jews have these two calendars (usually known as the civil and religious calendars). So the 17th of the 7th month (when the ark came to rest and a new life dawned for Noah and his family) is exactly the same day as the 17th of the 1st month (called Nisan) in the religious calendar. So what is significant about this day then?

New birth and the feast of first fruits

There are a surprising number of key events in Israel's history that occurred on this exact date. The 17th of Nisan (the first month in the religious calendar) is a very key date associated with resurrection! Here is a list of the events that occurred on this day:

  • Noah's ark comes through the waters and rests on the earth for the first time bringing new life to Noah and his family on the 17th of Nisan.
  • The feast of firstfruits (symbolising new life) would occur on the first Sunday after Passover (Passover was on the 14th of Nisan (Ex 12) so any time this falls on a Thursday, the feast of firstfruits was on the 17th of this month).
  • Israel came through the Red Sea on the 17th of Nisan having left at Passover on the 14th. For them this was death to their old life (with the drowning of the Egyptians) and resurrection to a new life in God on the 17th!
  • The manna which had fed the nation of Israel for the 40 years in the wilderness stopped on the 16th of Nisan and from the 17th onwards Israel feasted on the new grain of the promised land (Josh 5:10-12). This again is a picture of the new life that came on the 17th!
  • The death sentence hung over the entire Israelite nation as their sworn enemy, Haman, had convinced the king to sign a decree to destroy them (Esther 3:1-12). The decree went out on the 13th Nisan (Esther 3:12). Esther then proclaimed a three day fast (Esther 4:16) for the 14th, 15th and 16th. On the 3rd day (5:1) Esther approached the king saying to herself 'If I perish, I perish!' (an attitude of death or resurrection... it's in God's hands!) On the 17th Nisan, the tables were turned on the enemy Haman and instead of the Jews being destroyed, his own life was taken!
Good job, but you have not shown why the messiah must be resurrected after 3 days specifically. You have underlined the challenge involved and have scrutinized the canon looking for clues. Maybe you are wondering why it is so tricky? For example can you come up with a compelling reason why the resurrection must happen on the 17th? No, but you can point to it being an auspicious day. Looking about, asking here and there and turning over rocks reveals that whatever argument Jesus gave has been lost in time.

"...Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luk 24:26-27 NIV)​

Now there is no one explaining it. Pointing out auspicious days or Jesus suggesting it must be three days or comparing his own death to the death of Jonah is all interesting, but it lacks whatever Jesus is claimed to explain in Luke 24. No one explains this to anyone now.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
The problem with the belief in a physical resurrection is that it could never have happened nor dead bodies rise from graves according to science and reason. Which means it was a spiritual vision not seen with outward but inner eyes or perception.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The Bible is the most read and studied book on the planet.

There is no indication of that Adrian. Its just an assumption.

So I agree that to understand the Gospel accounts we need to understand Judaism and the milieu and exigencies of the Christian communities in the first century.

I highly doubt this. To understand the Gospel accounts, there is no point studying judaism, but what you actually mean is the Judaism taught by Christians, not the Judaism taught by the Jews. What you actually mean is the Old Testament looked through the filter of the New Testament. That is not Judaism. Even when the NT writers quote the OT, they quote the hellenised version, not the jewish version. When Christians interpret the OT they interpret it from an evolved, Christian point of view, not from a Judaism point of view.

Anyway, the Resurrection accounts take different colour and grandeur through the Gospels. Mark doesnt have anything but the women going and telling nothing. Other accounts differ. Luke you quoted has variants that would surprise you. Codex Bazae would say that they watched him, while other manuscripts would say the cloud came down and that's all they saw, etc etc.

Anyway, the resurrection accounts are narrated from sources. What source no one knows. M is not a source due to new discovery of ancient manuscripts, but earlier contained some forged verses. There is a lot of historical problems with these accounts.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
IMO, the authors of the Gospels were trying to describe events that they believed literally happened and were critically important for their religion.

I think that this literal intent ties in with the original baptism ritual in Christianity: new Christians would be held underwater until the experienced a near-death experience (which they interpreted as literal death). IOW, they believed they were literally going through their own literal death and resurrection, and thereby sharing in Jesus's death and resurrection. I don't think they would have gone to this extreme if they thought Jesus's death was figurative.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
So I agree that to understand the Gospel accounts we need to understand Judaism and the milieu and exigencies of the Christian communities in the first century.
Christianity in the first century was largely rejected by Jews. Early Christians had their best successes with gentiles.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I suspect the resurrection idea was a more 'organic' development than it was a deliberate intent. If Jesus just dies, the story kind of dies with him. Yet the ways in which his story and message are important to people are really current and present tense: perpetual. So the story just couldn't end with Jesus dying on the cross. Especially at the hands of the spiritually ignorant. I really don't see how Jesus' story could have ended any other way but with his resurrection, and ascension. Leaving his message and his promise, to us, in perpetuity.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Without knowing the identities of the authors it's hard to surmise what their true intents were. Each may have had different intents and scholars now believe that some of the gospels--one in the least, John's gospel--was written by several men as indicated by the changes in style from one chapter to the next. The story of the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in any manuscripts until roughly the 8th century. Personally, I think the authors as a collective group were trying to get the new Christianity movement off the ground and as each gospel came along the new authors added more and more flourishes and supernatural events to make it more fantastic than the last. This is why we see Jesus growing from a mighty prophet in Mark to a demi-god in Matthew and Luke to full god in John. This may have been an attempt to attract pagans who didn't want to worship a prophet, they wanted an actual god, so the writers of John gave them them one.

You make some useful points.

1/ We don't know for certain the identify of any of the authors of the Gospel accounts. There are a variety of reasons we can't know for certain, one of the most important being the relative absence of any contemporary and corroborative documents. Other than the NT books themselves and rare external sources such as Josephus and Tacitus there are practically no records to confirm Christianity existed within the one hundred years after Christ was crucified. We simply don't have any hard evidence to know exactly who wrote the Gospels let alone the intent of their authors. So the story of Jesus for the most part is shrouded in mystery.

2/ With so little reliable information we look to the Gospel accounts themselves to understand the life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ. Jesus is portrayed quite differently in all four Gospels.

3/ The Gospel accounts while having useful historical information can not be considered as reliable historical documents.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe it is you who is allegorising a purely historical narrative. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then the gospels are fictional. Why apart from your faith would you need to doubt that God did raise Jesus up from the dead. God could do it surely. The prophecies say that the Messiah would rise again. The story tells us that Jesus rose again.
There would be questions and issues to unravel if Jesus had not risen from the dead.

The main problem I have with the resurrection is the ascension as recorded in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11. It makes no sense from a scriptural or logical perspective to have the physical body of Jesus allegedly travelling through the stratosphere into outer space to sit on the right hand side of His Father on a throne in heaven. So while I agree there are questions and issues to work through if that didn't happen, there seems to be far greater issues and questions if we make the assumption Jesus did literally arise from the dead and ascend into heaven.
 

SeekingAllTruth

Well-Known Member
You make some useful points.

1/ We don't know for certain the identify of any of the authors of the Gospel accounts. There are a variety of reasons we can't know for certain, one of the most important being the relative absence of any contemporary and corroborative documents. Other than the NT books themselves and rare external sources such as Josephus and Tacitus there are practically no records to confirm Christianity existed within the one hundred years after Christ was crucified. We simply don't have any hard evidence to know exactly who wrote the Gospels let alone the intent of their authors. So the story of Jesus for the most part is shrouded in mystery.

2/ With so little reliable information we look to the Gospel accounts themselves to understand the life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ. Jesus is portrayed quite differently in all four Gospels.

3/ The Gospel accounts while having useful historical information can not be considered as reliable historical documents.
True, true, and true.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Here are a few reasons for me to think so: Belief in and verbal confession of the resurrection is required weekly in hundreds of thousands of churches, and this must be not just any confession but an endorsement of a particular view of resurrection. That makes it sensitive. Another reason is that the gospels are typically put forward as a message from God to us, explaining after the fact what actually happened. Any disagreement at all with this is considered an attack upon the clergy, a denial of Christianity, a denial of belief; and you are not accepted because of it. Third, parents often seem like they cannot cope with deaths and disfigurements of their children, and when they are involved its not merely a sensitive subject but an overwhelming subject. Some cannot broach discussion of anything but agreement with their own conceptions about it. Churches have split over discussions about what happens to unbaptized or unchristened children when they die. It is sensitive.

I recall reciting a statement based on the Nicene Creed growing up. My personal belief and as a Baha'i affirms the Divine inspiration of the Gospels, Jesus is the "Son of God', the virgin birth, the Divinity of Christ and the primacy of Peter. I believe in the necessity of the resurrection and ascension of His Holiness Jesus the Christ but see this has being a spiritual phenomenon. So in the eyes of the close associates and disciples of Christ, He rose from the dead and ascended unto heaven, and this experience of Christ was as real as if He was physically brought back to life. However that is different from Christ being literally and bodily brought back to life and the ascension through the stratosphere into outer space. The latter is a uniquely Christian belief makes little sense to me personally but I respect those who have different perspectives.

It is important in a pluralistic world we are comfortable with those who hold beliefs different to our own without the perception of being attacked or criticised. I don't have any affiliation to any church so have no need to be silent in regards beliefs I hold that would be at variance to my Christian brethren. I don't live in the USA so have freedom of speak my thoughts about such matters. I was baptised as a child and then again as an adult but see this would have little relevancy to God when I am judged in the next world.

Those are my views and thoughts on the matter. Thanks for explaining why this is a matter of sensitivity to you and to other Christians. I have no desire to offend and denigrate. However if we can not talk about such a core element of Christian Faith, what can we talk about? See the problem?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The main problem I have with the resurrection is the ascension as recorded in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11. It makes no sense from a scriptural or logical perspective to have the physical body of Jesus allegedly travelling through the stratosphere into outer space to sit on the right hand side of His Father on a throne in heaven. So while I agree there are questions and issues to work through if that didn't happen, there seems to be far greater issues and questions if we make the assumption Jesus did literally arise from the dead and ascend into heaven.
If it's a scriptural perspective we're looking at the story through, then there's no stratosphere or outer space.

From a scriptural perspective, the sky is a solid dome with "windows" that allow objects to pass through it to Heaven.

There are also plenty of stories in the Bible of people and things being magically carried bodily up or down between Heaven and Earth (e.g. the prophet Elijah, various angels).

A literal interpretation is ridiculous from a modern understanding, but I think it's a mistake to impose a modern understanding on works written in the first and second century.

Is there anything that would have made the author think that Jesus being transported bodily to Heaven would have been ridiculous? If so, what? If not, why reject the idea that the story was intended literally?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

I very much believe that the author of Matthew took existing gospel material and was influenced by many other traditions or the reputation of traditions because he like the other gospel authors wanted to describe a new teacher and a new teaching. They were evangelizing through telling the story of Jesus. I suspect that the author of Matthew used Magi (Zoroastrianism) and the prevailing Jewish religion and even some Buddhist ideas to compose and contrast a new school of belief centered on Jesus.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Should we take all this as a literal account of events or perhaps the story of Jesus is embellished or allegorised to convey hidden spiritual truths?
So why would the gospel writers "allegorize" the story of Jesus? Embellish it, probably. And that is why so many people don't believe in Christianity. An invisible God. An invisible devil and a dead man coming back to life.. And if you don't believe all this you are going to hell? Lots of reasons not to believe it.

Maybe it is you who is allegorising a purely historical narrative. If Jesus did not rise from the dead then the gospels are fictional.
But Baha'is and Christians do believe the gospel stories. Baha'is allegorize them and some Christians take them literally. But I agree with Brian2, if you allegorize them they become nothing more than fiction.

There are also plenty of stories in the Bible of people and things being magically carried bodily up or down between Heaven and Earth (e.g. the prophet Elijah, various angels).

A literal interpretation is ridiculous from a modern understanding, but I think it's a mistake to impose a modern understanding on works written in the first and second century.

Is there anything that would have made the author think that Jesus being transported bodily to Heaven would have been ridiculous? If so, what? If not, why reject the idea that the story was intended literally?
Yes, I agree... plenty of ridiculous stories that to lots of people in today's world, with today's scientific knowledge sound crazy. But to people 2000 years and more ago? These things, I think, were written down to be believed as true and were believed as true.

The problem with the belief in a physical resurrection is that it could never have happened nor dead bodies rise from graves according to science and reason. Which means it was a spiritual vision not seen with outward but inner eyes or perception.
No. not back then. Literal? I doubt it. Embellished? Probably. But the message, I think, the gospel writers were trying to convey is that Jesus is special. He is from God. He conquered death and if you believe in him, he will save you from burning in hell.

IMO, the authors of the Gospels were trying to describe events that they believed literally happened and were critically important for their religion.
And if they didn't believe that they really happened, and if they did embellish them, then these gospel writers were not writing the "Word of God" but the words of men that were making up things to make Jesus greater and bigger than he was. And that ain't right. But what was more important to Christianity than to have Jesus, their savior, conquer death? That is what it's all about for Christians back then and for many Christians even today, despite what science says.

So I agree that to understand the Gospel accounts we need to understand Judaism and the milieu and exigencies of the Christian communities in the first century.
And it probably wouldn't hurt to understand the pagan religions of the time.

Christianity in the first century was largely rejected by Jews. Early Christians had their best successes with gentiles.
And what would be a good thing to say to Gentiles to get them to convert? Hmmm? Maybe that Jesus rose from the dead. Along with being virgin born and walking on water... that he had power over Satan and was going to one day return and cast Satan into an abyss... along with anyone that doesn't believe.

So, to the Baha'is, if these Gentiles were told that these are "allegorized" stories would they have had the same impact? Even today some people fear the devil and be sent to hell. And they pray to Jesus to save them. How's an allegorized Jesus going to do anything? Is he virgin born? "No, that's an allegory." Did he walk on water? "No, he would have sunk like a stone. That's allegory too." Rose from the dead? "No, don't be silly. Dead people don't come back to life accept in zombie movies." Then the person would ask, "So why am I supposed to join this new religion?" Let me stay with Zeus and Mars and Aphrodite. Gods that have some real power.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
If it's a scriptural perspective we're looking at the story through, then there's no stratosphere or outer space.

From a scriptural perspective, the sky is a solid dome with "windows" that allow objects to pass through it to Heaven.

There are also plenty of stories in the Bible of people and things being magically carried bodily up or down between Heaven and Earth (e.g. the prophet Elijah, various angels).

A literal interpretation is ridiculous from a modern understanding, but I think it's a mistake to impose a modern understanding on works written in the first and second century.

Is there anything that would have made the author think that Jesus being transported bodily to Heaven would have been ridiculous? If so, what? If not, why reject the idea that the story was intended literally?

I start from the assumption the resurrection/ascension of Christ did not happen literally. It is the most logical starting point for me as it is for you, but perhaps for different reasons. I believe in the God of Abraham and that God has the power to overcome the laws of the phenomenal world. God could heal the sick, and enable the blind to see and the cripple to walk. He could bring a dead man back to life. Just because He can do such things doesn't mean that He did those things that were recorded in the Bible. None of us were there so we don't know for certain. So an atheist will assume these things did not happen as no such God exists. I take an agnostic view, that while God could have performed these miracles we only have the Gospel accounts to go on.

The issue with the ascension of Christ is different from the other miracles. It relies on a redundant cosmology that has been categorically disproven. So while Jesus may have reasonably ascended into the heavens in accordance with the cosmology that was understood among the Jews two thousand years ago, to speak of Him rising through the stratosphere into outer space is nonsensical. Why should any reasonable person believe such a thing? So it is reasonable for a Bible believing theist to reject the resurrection/ascension narrative as literal.

So what of the disciples and close associates of Jesus? Did they believe Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven? That is unlikely as they never witnessed such a thing. What of the Gospel writers? We don't know for certain who they were. The Evangelical Christians claim the authors of Matthew and John were first hand witnesses to the events they wrote of. However there is insufficient evidence IMHO to conclude that with any certainty the Gospel writers were first hand witnesses. If they were not then they relied on the stories they heard, some that were being spoken by second and third generation Christians at the time the first Gospels were in circulation.

All religion has a degree of mythology. It was common practice for Greco-Roman biographies to be mythologized somewhat. So at some point mythologised aspects of the life of Jesus became seen as fact. The Gospels are outstanding works of their day IMHO. They are not the ramblings of illiterate and uneducated common folk. They understood allegory and metaphor as it was the modus operandi of the One who was the focal point of their adoration.

Consider the verses concerning being born again John 3:1-9:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?


These verses use the phrase 'born again' to describe the transformative effect of the Teachings of Jesus for one who accepts it.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
A lot of this kind of mythology is the reason I believe we can’t have world peace. Believing in a physical resurrection evokes attitudes of exclusiveness and superiority in people, reasons for condemning other religions as being false because their Prophets are buried whereas Christ’s is nowhere to be found.

So to these people all other religions are false because only Christ rose from the dead.
It’s a belief which i firmly believe is an affront to unity, harmony and world peace because it is teaching superiority. Christ dying on the cross was the ultimate act of humility yet soon after it was turned into an act to proclaim the superiority of Christianity over all other Faiths.

I believe it’s a disease of the ego to constantly cling to verses to claim supremacy and superiority over others. It is a disease reflecting those whose aim is to dominate and control.

Continually we hear Christ rose physically so He is superior and He said He is the Way so there is no other way, But others like Krishna, well before Christ have said much stronger things.

Being indoctrinated to consider oneself superior is nothing new. Dictators use this method to demonise entire populations and I believe that this method has been used to avoid losing members to other religions.

Christ never taught anything but pure humility and love for all. Supremacy and superiority is anti Christ as it pits Christians against other Messengers God has sent since Christ.

The intent of the disciples I believe, was to show that you cannot kill the Spirit of Christ that’s all. But others unfortunately have seized on these sayings to use them for control purposes and to maintain membership.

Due to this disease of clinging to verses which can be twisted to mean supremacy and superiority, I believe Christians have failed to acknowledge three other God sent Messengers in Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Unfortunately we do not live in a spiritual age. We live at a time that appeasing the ego is most important. Each religion clings to a tiny handful of verses proclaiming they are the best and the rest are false, which separates us.

In a spirit of compassion I believe we all need to re-examine that which separates us as maybe we can find an understanding which reconciles and unites us instead of always being opposed to one another.


Most of the people have become afflicted with the same spiritual disease”

Bahá’u’lláh
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
So why would the gospel writers "allegorize" the story of Jesus? Embellish it, probably. And that is why so many people don't believe in Christianity. An invisible God. An invisible devil and a dead man coming back to life.. And if you don't believe all this you are going to hell? Lots of reasons not to believe it.

Jesus spoke in parables or stories with deeper spiritual meanings. Greco-Roman biographies often used mythologised accounts of their subject material. So there’s good reasons why the story of Jesus would be embellished and allegorised.

It is true that many are turning away from Christianity and the main reasons are because it no longer makes sense or the stories are so implausible.

And it probably wouldn't hurt to understand the pagan religions of the time.

The word pagan is a pejorative and came about within Christianity to describe anything that isn’t Christian. But your point is a valid one. It was largely through the Gentiles that Christianity took root and so we should understand cultural influences within the Roman Empire.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Jesus spoke in parables or stories with deeper spiritual meanings. Greco-Roman biographies often used mythologised accounts of their subject material. So there’s good reasons why the story of Jesus would be embellished and allegorised.
I don't see it that way, because the gospel writers made it clear when Jesus was saying one of his parables. They were writing as if it was an accurate, historical account of what Jesus said and did. I'd call taking the Bible and the NT literally as an extreme belief. Jonah getting swallowed by a big fish and surviving for 3 days? Fire coming down from heaven for Elijah's sacrifice? Samson loses his strength when his hair is cut? Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt? Allegories or embellishments?

Then the NT, God speaks from heaven? Jesus turns into a radiant shining light?
Matt. 17:1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus... 5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”... 9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”​

And here we have Jesus, supposedly, saying he will be raised from the dead. And later in the same chapter says...
22 When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.
23 They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.”
Sorry, but it reads like they are telling about the things that actual happened and the things that Jesus told them. Since it wasn't written until way later, and as if any of the writers were really there and heard and saw these things for themselves, and, even if they did, that they remembered everything perfectly? Then I would imagine there was a good chance they embellished the story. But were they smart enough to tell a story that was really an allegory? That when they said that Jesus rose from the dead, they really meant that his followers, the symbolic body of Christ, came to "spiritual" life and started living and teaching the principles that Jesus had taught them? If that's good enough for Baha'is, then fine.

For me, I think that's too complicated. Other religions had miracles and people coming back to life. They had battles between good gods and evil demon gods. They had a hell and a paradise. So, I don't know for sure, but I'd have absolutely no problem believing the gospel writers threw in some of these things from these other religions. But, I don't see how the Christians could have pulled off the hoax of the empty tomb. Do you still believe they could have taken the body and hidden it? Then, not one of them, while being threatened with torture and death, confessing?

But still, let's say they hid the body. Then what? They spread the rumor that they had seen Jesus alive? Then the gospel writers wrote it down and said that there were many eyewitnesses that saw Jesus alive? Then that story is based on a lie. It isn't "allegorical". They are still telling the story as if Jesus really had come back to life.

So we got... It really did happen and they were reporting the things as they actually happened. Jesus did come back to life, but some of the things didn't happen. They were embellishments added in. Or, Jesus died and they hid the body and made up the story about him coming back to life. Or, they wrote the story as if Jesus had come back to life, but it was all an allegorized parable that was not meant to be taken literally. You know, I don't like any of them. That he came back to life... appeared and disappeared. Had a body of flesh and bone, and then floated off into the sky? Doubtful. That he did come back to life, but some of the details were just embellishments? Still coming back to life, if that really happened, is great enough. Who cares if the other things, the earthquakes and people coming out of their graves, didn't really happen. But, even that one thing is totally and completely unbelievable. So was that made up?

So Jesus died. Then what? Were their guards at tomb? Was their even a special tomb? Or did the disciples already have his body? If not, who stole it? How did they do it? How many of the disciples knew? How long after they hid the body did they start making claims that Jesus had come back to life and was seen by Mary and some of the others? So were they in on it? Then when Jesus supposedly appeared to all the disciples, were they in on it? Anyway, were they smart enough to pull off such a hoax and keep a straight face when they told others that Jesus had risen from the dead?

Then the allegorical explanation... For those that don't know, here is Abdul Baha's Baha'is explanation...
Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. 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, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, 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.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended 105 the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.
Actually, I just thought of another possibility. The story about the resurrection was made up. There were lots legends and traditions of Jesus that were being told. Then gospels started to get written. The 4 gospels got canonized. The rest were rejected. So the official story was that Jesus came back to life. The tomb was empty. He appeared to many, then ascended into heaven. But the Jews and the Romans didn't care. I guess even with that, someone would have thought that they better hide the body just in case anyone really cared enough to check. Only problem, to me, it makes both Christianity and the Baha'i Faith false religions. The Baha'i Faith, because they say that Christianity is a true religion, when, if the story was made up, it was not. What a mess. What else can you add Adrian to the Baha'i explanation?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
The story of the resurrection of Christ is recorded in all four Canonical Gospels and is one of the most important aspects of Christian Faith. Christians believe Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit to the Virgin Mary, was baptized, crucified and resurrected from the dead. Many Christians take the story literally and some insist a belief that Jesus literally rose from the dead is a fundamental to Christian belief. I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?

I include for consideration the first ten verses of Mathew 28.

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
I think from Bahai perspective To test the believers hearts.
 
Top