Jesus Empty tomb narratives

[Trailblazer]

Pretty much all religions believe and teach that many events they cite were in some way divinely inspired, so are we to believe all of them or only the ones we choose to believe?

I think belief should be a choice. I think that if you are interested you should investigate the claims of these religions and determine for yourself if they are divinely inspired or not. Of course we can never prove such a thing, all we can do is look at the evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

In Christianity, do the apostles have same position as an ordinary historians?
I mean, they were eye witnesses to the event, and also, the Scripture claims to be inspired by God. Other history books are not inspired by God. Shouldn't that make a difference?

Depends what you mean by "inspired."
What isn't to stop God being inspired by ambiguity and doubt?
Fer instance the bible says the Messiah shall come from Bethlehem and
be of the House of David. Many Jews saw Jesus as being a Galilean and
therefore of the tribes of Zebulun or Naphtali. It doesn't say that Jesus set
the record straight by telling them his parent brought him out of Egypt and
settled in Nazareth. If you were earnest about getting to the bottom of the
issue you would have found this out for yourself.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see the stories are an anology and as we know, each person sees life and Faith in a different light, each see Faith in their own unique way. As such I would expect that when telling Spiritual Stories about events surrounding a Manifestation of God, that one person's account from their recollections, would be different from another's.

I see each story still tells us that we are to look for spiritual meanings and the biggest mistake we can make is to make the Message of Jesus the Christ into material events and expect a material return of the same Jesus.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

Would you say the story of the event of going to the empty Tomb of Jesus and seeing 2 angels, is the same type of story as seeing Moses and Aaron on the mountain, same type of story as seeing resurrected Jesus at the dinner table? If yest, none of them actually happened. I think, with regards to seeing Moses and Aaron, Abdulbaha said, it is a vision.

We can't say for certain, but I believe there is a reasonable case to be made for the resurrection narrative beginning with Paul.

1/ We can be certain the resurrection and ascension as recorded in the New Testament didn't happen.

2/ Paul's first epistle to the Church in Corinthian is the earliest known mention of the resurrection (early 50s AD and much earlier than the Gospels were written).

3/ Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus yet his conversion experience was a few years after the 40 days of post crucifixion resurrection experiences.

4/ Paul was a mystic and had various visions.

5/ Paul uses the 'Body of Christ' phrase many times as a metaphor for the church.

6/ Paul's influence on early Christian thought was enormous as evidenced by nearly half the NT books being written by him.

 

[PruePhillip]

.

We can't say for certain, but I believe there is a reasonable case to be made for the resurrection narrative beginning with Paul.

1/ We can be certain the resurrection and ascension as recorded in the New Testament didn't happen.

2/ Paul's first epistle to the Church in Corinthian is the earliest known mention of the resurrection (early 50s AD and much earlier than the Gospels were written).

3/ Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus yet his conversion experience was a few years after the 40 days of post crucifixion resurrection experiences.

4/ Paul was a mystic and had various visions.

5/ Paul uses the 'Body of Christ' phrase many times as a metaphor for the church.

6/ Paul's influence on early Christian thought was enormous as evidenced by nearly half the NT books being written by him.

Both David and Isaiah (maybe amongst others) spoke of the risen Messiah.
That this Messiah would suffer, face a cruel death, be resurrected and look
back with satisfaction that their work had been done, And people would speak
to generations 'not yet born that He has done this."
There are two Messiahs in scripture. The suffering Redeemer who dies for his
people, and the ruling Messiah, King of the nations. Zechariah speaks of how
Jews, yet in the future, will see their Kingly Messiah, and realize it's the same
lowly man they had crucified.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dawnofhope]

Both David and Isaiah (maybe amongst others) spoke of the risen Messiah.
That this Messiah would suffer, face a cruel death, be resurrected and look
back with satisfaction that their work had been done, And people would speak
to generations 'not yet born that He has done this."
There are two Messiahs in scripture. The suffering Redeemer who dies for his
people, and the ruling Messiah, King of the nations. Zechariah speaks of how
Jews, yet in the future, will see their Kingly Messiah, and realize it's the same
lowly man they had crucified.

Being resurrected or risen is a metaphor for being exalted having once been abased.

 

[Terry Sampson]

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

 

[InvestigateTruth]

We can't say for certain, but I believe there is a reasonable case to be made for the resurrection narrative beginning with Paul.

1/ We can be certain the resurrection and ascension as recorded in the New Testament didn't happen.

2/ Paul's first epistle to the Church in Corinthian is the earliest known mention of the resurrection (early 50s AD and much earlier than the Gospels were written).

3/ Paul claims to have seen the resurrected Jesus yet his conversion experience was a few years after the 40 days of post crucifixion resurrection experiences.

4/ Paul was a mystic and had various visions.

5/ Paul uses the 'Body of Christ' phrase many times as a metaphor for the church.

6/ Paul's influence on early Christian thought was enormous as evidenced by nearly half the NT books being written by him.

Gospels mention Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, then remained 40 days. If jesus resurrection means, the rise of church of christ, or resurrection of the Religion, then why, it only remained 40 days? How would 40 days corresponds to the history?

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

To be clear, Jesus as the ‘Son of God’ as opposed to the ‘son of god’ is a theological narrative that needs careful consideration as to its meanings within the New Testament, Quran and Baha’i Writings. Biblical literalism and rejection of Islam/Baha’i theology are core differences in our world views. So other than somewhat aggressively restating your position was there anything else you wish to add?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Gospels mention Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, then remained 40 days. If jesus resurrection means, the rise of church of christ, or resurrection of the Religion, then why, it only remained 40 days? How would 40 days corresponds to the history?

Obviously the rise of the Church of Christ was an evolving process over centuries. However the periods corresponding to the 3 days between the crucifixion and resurrection, the period between the resurrection and Pentecost, and then the Apostolic era are distinct eras in Christian history.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Gospels mention Jesus was resurrected after 3 days, then remained 40 days. If jesus resurrection means, the rise of church of christ, or resurrection of the Religion, then why, it only remained 40 days? How would 40 days corresponds to the history?

I love the symbolism of Numbers. One could say that Jesus Message lasted for 3 days, which in Biblical terms is 3 years.

So the Word of God was Resurrected in Jesus the Christ in a 3 year Ministry.

Remaining for 40 Days could be Prophecy of the return of Christ, where he says I have much more to say unto you, hinting that the Next Message would last for 40 days, or in Biblical terms 40 years.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Being resurrected or risen is a metaphor for being exalted having once been abased.

I think early Christians and many Christians today believe it is literal. Some Christians call it a "glorified" body which makes it possible to have more capabilities than the run of the mill physical body. I wonder what the Pharisees believed about the resurrection? If they thought it was the same physical body? I have no problem in thinking that people in those days did think God could and would raise the same physical body. They could have been wrong. They could be taking things way too literal, but I think the Christians and maybe the Pharisees also, believed they would be resurrected into the same physical body.

I still don't see any reason why all four gospels went straight into the resurrection story from the crucifixion story as if it was a real event, if it was only meant to be a "metaphor." If the resurrection is not true, I have no problem in believing the writers made it up. How they possibly could have pulled it off, I don't know. You have said that hiding the body is very much possible. So let's say that did happen. Jesus is dead. His body is taken and buried in a secret tomb somewhere.

But... the story and the oral traditions say that the apostles and others saw him alive? And the early Church taught that. How could they have fooled everybody and gotten all those that knew that Jesus never appeared to go along with it? Since some of them must have still been alive when the gospels got written? Anyway, it might have all kinds of metaphorical meanings, but if he didn't rise again, and Baha'is say he didn't, I still see it as a lie, a hoax and a coverup.

 

[Terry Sampson]

So other than somewhat aggressively restating your position was there anything else you wish to add?

LOL! "somewhat aggressively"? And here I thought I was merely, somewhat mildly but assertively, restating my position in response to yet another restatement of the standard propaganda, by a metaphorical Abrahamic Baha'i, that everything in the Bible is metaphorical.

Biblical literalism and rejection of Islam/Baha’i theology are core differences in our world views.

I am hardly a biblical literalist. Personally, I could reject the doctrine of the Incarnation and still believe that Jesus was and is the Son of God and that, while on earth, he was executed by Roman soldiers, entombed, and resurrected, and that he ascended into heaven. My rejection of Islam theology is not new. But what the Moslems and I have in common is that we all reject Baha'i theology.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I love the symbolism of Numbers. One could say that Jesus Message lasted for 3 days, which in Biblical terms is 3 years.

So the Word of God was Resurrected in Jesus the Christ in a 3 year Ministry.

Remaining for 40 Days could be Prophecy of the return of Christ, where he says I have much more to say unto you, hinting that the Next Message would last for 40 days, or in Biblical terms 40 years.

Regards Tony

Yes, and even the death of christ, and His rise on the third day (3rd year), corresponded with death of the Bab, and His resurrection on the 3rd year (as beginning of the mission of Bahaullah which took place in the 3rd year of the Bab's martyrdom, can be seen as resurrection of the Bab).

 

[PruePhillip]

Being resurrected or risen is a metaphor for being exalted having once been abased.

And that ridiculous Roman story about the African general Hannibal who crossed the Alps
and invaded Rome itself - that's just a metaphor for the "enemy at the gates", a cautionary
racist myth about barbarians and why we need to destroy them.
It seems that history is full of these ridiculous accounts that have bearing in reality.

 

[PruePhillip]

Obviously the rise of the Church of Christ was an evolving process over centuries. However the periods corresponding to the 3 days between the crucifixion and resurrection, the period between the resurrection and Pentecost, and then the Apostolic era are distinct eras in Christian history.

Yes, the CATHOLIC CHURCH certainly evolved over the centuries. That's got nothing to
do with the Apostolic Church or Jesus' teachings. In fact, it was during the times of the
Acts we see people breaking away and returning to symbolic worship, ie holy days,
physical altars, regulations etc..

 

[InvestigateTruth]

a metaphorical Abrahamic Baha'i, that everything in the Bible is metaphorical.

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahai scriptures say it is illogical to say a human birth without father is impossible.

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

1637. Christ, Virgin Birth of

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

(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
Lights of Guidance/Christ - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

 

[Terry Sampson]

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

The Bible can be used to say anything you want it to say....
Baha'is do it, Christians do it, Jews do it, atheists do it, and you do it.... The logical point is that interpretations do not prove anything since there are so many of them.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think early Christians and many Christians today believe it is literal. Some Christians call it a "glorified" body which makes it possible to have more capabilities than the run of the mill physical body. I wonder what the Pharisees believed about the resurrection? If they thought it was the same physical body? I have no problem in thinking that people in those days did think God could and would raise the same physical body. They could have been wrong. They could be taking things way too literal, but I think the Christians and maybe the Pharisees also, believed they would be resurrected into the same physical body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I still don't see any reason why all four gospels went straight into the resurrection story from the crucifixion story as if it was a real event, if it was only meant to be a "metaphor." If the resurrection is not true, I have no problem in believing the writers made it up. How they possibly could have pulled it off, I don't know. You have said that hiding the body is very much possible. So let's say that did happen. Jesus is dead. His body is taken and buried in a secret tomb somewhere.

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

John 20:31

But... the story and the oral traditions say that the apostles and others saw him alive? And the early Church taught that. How could they have fooled everybody and gotten all those that knew that Jesus never appeared to go along with it? Since some of them must have still been alive when the gospels got written? Anyway, it might have all kinds of metaphorical meanings, but if he didn't rise again, and Baha'is say he didn't, I still see it as a lie, a hoax and a coverup.

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