Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[CG Didymus]

You may be confused (though really you are looking for contradictions in the Baha'i worldview) but I'm not.

Baha'is believe in the God of Abraham as the Christians do. God Manifests Himself through Great beings such as Christ. He speaks to humanity through prophets such as Daniel. God can override the laws of nature and perform miracles though rarely does.

Baha'is reject the Catholic doctrine of the original sin. We do however uphold the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception. One doctrine is a misunderstanding of the Bible (Genesis 2 to 3). The other isn't (Matthew 1:18-25).

Mary was the one that was supposedly "immaculately" conceived isn't it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Mary was the one that was supposedly "immaculately" conceived isn't it?

Of course. Who else?

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'is are not atheists. Baha'is believe in an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God who can perform miracles and do great things.

A virgin birth is no problem to the God of Abraham.

So who were the eyewitnesses to this? How long after the event was it written about? How many gospel writer mention it? And yet, as the gospel stories progress from the crucifixion to the empty tomb, to the appearances and to the ascension, the story continues as if it all really took place? Why, if symbolic, would the writers do that?

 

[CG Didymus]

That's one of the key arguments against a literal resurrection for certain. Fundamentalist Christians don't see that of course and overplay the 'evidence' of the gospels.

The gospels are supposedly God's Word. How do you "overplay" that? It says they witnessed it and they are telling the truth. I have no problem believing it was embellished. You have mentioned things in the gospels as being embellished. Why not go with that, the writers made it up?

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course. Who else?

Did you sort it all out if Baha'is believe in the "immaculate conception" or not?

 

[Dawnofhope]

So who were the eyewitnesses to this?

Witnesses to the immaculate conception? No one. The first Mary knew of it was when she discovered she was pregnant.

How long after the event was it written about?

At least 50 - 90 years after the event.

How many gospel writer mention it?

Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38

And yet, as the gospel stories progress from the crucifixion to the empty tomb, to the appearances and to the ascension, the story continues as if it all really took place?

It appears that way.

Why, if symbolic, would the writers do that?

To reflect the preaching and the oral traditions with which they were familiar.

To provide a compelling narrative that reflects the Life and Teachings of Christ.

So we would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that we may have life through His name.
(John 20:31)

 

[Trailblazer]

You find ways to support a virgin birth but deny the possibility of the resurrection. It's all part of the same story. Some of it real, some symbolic, but both written as if real?

If you have been talking to these Baha'is here for any length of time, I would think you would know that we have what we call "Authoritative Writings" and we do not question those. So Shoghi Effendi says that we uphold the doctrine of the Virgin Birth which is why we do.

The resurrection is not part of the same story. It happened a lot later. I love Blu 2, a skeptic who hit the nail on the head:

Blu 2 said: "This is true of any text, and the bible is simply a body of ancient texts,written by various people at various times and places for various purposes and agendas, and there's no reason why anyone should expect consistency in such circumstances. Nor does the bible itself claim to be consistent (or inerrant, or the word of God) and if it did, that wouldn't be a credible claim anyway." 66 blü 2, Today at 5:14 PM

 

[Dawnofhope]

The gospels are supposedly God's Word. How do you "overplay" that?

By taking verses literally that were allegorical and claiming they are irrefutable proofs of something that never happened.

It says they witnessed it and they are telling the truth.

They did. I encounter the resurrected Christ when I pray to Him too.

I have no problem believing it was embellished.

That's good. I know you don't believe it literally.

You have mentioned things in the gospels as being embellished. Why not go with that, the writers made it up?

They were inspired by God's unerring spirit. That resulted in a compelling narrative that resulted in mass conversions. I think Paul would have looked like a flake telling the story of Christ and then talking about which parts were symbolic. There were plenty of clues in the narrative itself to allow His audience to see another perspective. That is clear from the gospels.

 

[Trailblazer]

But Baha'u'llah wasn't the first "Christ" to appear? Prophesies have to be there supporting Muhammad and the Bab also. Are you convinced with the prophesies about them?

Yes, there are Bible prophecies that refer to Muhammad and the Bab and I am convinced of them because they all fit together like a perfect mosaic. I can send you some of those later if you want.... I am kind of on the run right now.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Did you sort it all out if Baha'is believe in the "immaculate conception" or not?

Got it. See post #618 and a few of the ones leading up to it.

I'm from a Protestant background so know the Bible, not the catechisms of the Catholic church.

 

[Trailblazer]

It matters very much. They said Jesus was raised from the dead. Did they mean it symbolically, and really meant that they, the "body" of Christ, had come to spiritual life or that Jesus himself had come back to life?

It does not really matter what they meant because as I said we cannot know now since they are not here to ask. It only matters what happened and what did not happen. There is no way to prove or disprove the bodily resurrection so it all boils down to what we choose to believe, in light of everything else in the Bible and the Baha'i Writings.

The other point. Who said, “Yes, I am coming soon"? Because the writer says, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." So he thought it was going to be Jesus. Was he wrong?

As far as I am concerned he was wrong, because I am a Baha'i. As I told a Christian friend I have been posting to about this for over three years, if the same Jesus shows up in the sky as the Christians believe He will, I will alter my belief...

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus supposedly fulfilled the prophesies of Judaism. But what were the Jews that hadn't converted right away supposed to do? Leave Judaism for a religion that taught in the devil and hell, original sin, that the only way to save yourself from hell was by believing in Jesus, to believe Jesus is part of a triune God etc., etc.? If by their fruits you shall know them, what fruit did Christianity have that proved them to be true?

Jesus partially fulfilled the prophecies for the Messiah but he did not fulfill the prophecies for the Messiah of the latter days (what Baha'is call the Return of Christ, the Promised One of All Ages). So many Jews did not accept Jesus since He did not fulfill all the Tanakh prophecies.

You need to separate what Jesus taught from what Christianity did later to distort the meaning of the New Testament and invent false doctrines such as the Trinity and Original Sin. What Jesus taught was true, but it got all but lost in the Christian doctrines.

 

[Neb]

But, they wrote about people seeing the empty tomb, talking with the risen Jesus, eating with him and touching him, when, all along, they knew what they were writing didn't happen in the real world... but was only something that was meant to be some mystical, symbolic story.

Again, the word we are looking for is “MANIFESTED” from the Greek word “PHANEROO”, to make visible, clear, manifest, known, that is contrary to gnosticism belief that Christ did not exist at all, therefore, there is NO literal crucifixion/death therefore, there is NO literal resurrection.

Why “MANIFESTED”?

Baha’i Faith claimed Baha’u’llah is the true manifestation of God. Baha’u’llah, a Persian/Iranian Shi’ite, means the glory of God, is the Messiah; in Judaism, the Christ; in Christianity, the twelfth Imam; in Islam, all in one, and who knows what else, perhaps Buddha and Krishna too. Does Baha’u’llah belong to the lineage of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel? NO! He belonged to Ishmael by Hagar.

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad/Ishmael, and because of thy handmaid/Hagar. In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice. For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." -Genesis 21:12

What is the meaning of, “For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”?

From Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to Judah, to King David, to Mary, and to the Lord Jesus and compare this to Baha’u’llah, a Persian, who did not come from the 12 tribes of Israel but through Ishmael, by Hagar and Abraham, and not through Isaac.

“whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 9:5

We can read in Romans 9:5a “Christ as concerning the flesh”, i.e., through Abraham, then Isaac and NOT from Ishmael, then to Jacob and NOT from Essau, then to the line Judah, to King David, and then to Mary.

Also in Romans 1:3 “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,” According to the flesh Christ came from the line of Judah to King David to Mary.

And in Romans 9:5b “who is over all, God blessed for ever” and then we read in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

We read in John 1:1 “and the Word was God” and in John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh”

We can read these verses repeatedly to eternity, from Romans to John, and we will end up with the same thing and that is, “the Word was God, and the Word became flesh”.

IOW, God that became flesh was “MANIFESTED” right in front of the apostles.

And this is what John was saying in his epistle. It says:

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life
1JN 1:2 “and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—“

Baha’i Faith can track the bloodline of Baha’u’llah back to Abraham, if they want to, and somehow they will think that it will guarantee them their sonship with the God of Abraham, but the scripture is very clear that it is through Isaac, and NOT by Ishmael or by Essau and all this is pointing to one direction, to this ONE SEED, and that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah BY MEANS OF MANIFESTATION or "WAS MANIFESTED" TO THE APOSTLES, i.e., LITERALLY.

In Galatian 3:16 “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

There is a special stress on the word “SEED” as referring to an individual, “which is Christ”, the Messiah.

Now, which one the TRUE MANIFESTATION OF GOD?

Christ or Baha’u’llah?

 

[Neb]

So you provide an answer that simply raises questions and doesn't specifically answer what was asked.

Having identified that at issue with the literal resurrection of Christ as a core tenant of Christianity is a glaring conflict between science and religion, you respond by completely ignoring what this thread is about, and go on the offensive, with all manner of criticisms about the Baha'i Faith. Deflection and avoidance, rather than constructive engagement the questions raised by the OP.

What is relevant about the Baha'i Faith is that it teaches the harmony between science and religion:

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

An easy way out is to invoke or appeal to science and religion as your main argument when confronted with facts known to be the truth in Christianity, like the resurrection of Christ. Of course scientists, a mere creation of the Creator, would deny such claim and this would conveniently prove your belief as the truth. If it’s in conflict with your doctrine you invoke science and religion, and just like atheism, they used science to disprove the existence of the God and in your case the existence of the literal resurrection of Christ by appealing to science. It’s all very convenient, very creative, but intellectually irresponsible.

 

[Neb]

So what is most likely? That God literally created the world in six days as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 or is it an allegorical story with a deeper meaning? Scientists overwhelmingly reject a literal interpretation including many Christian scientists.

How about the story of Noah and His magnificent Ark as recorded in Genesis 6 to 9? Did that really happen and if so what scientific proof is there to support or reject it? An allegorical story seems much more likely wouldn't you agree?

Fast forward to nearly two thousand years ago and we have the incredible story of Jesus with His rising from the dead and subsequent ascension to heaven. Is this literally true or an allegorical story told by the gospel writers and the apostles of Christ like the allegorical stories in Genesis? The latter seems most likely to me, as the former is scientifically impossible, even accounting for an All-Powerful and Omnipotent God that we both believe in.

All literal. Science is not God. If science is your authority on what is literal or allegorical in the Bible then science is your creator. I appeal to the Bible, the inerrant word of God. You worshipped and served creation rather than the Creator.

Let me ask you a question, how did life begin here on earth? Can your science and religion explain this?

 

[CG Didymus]

By taking verses literally that were allegorical and claiming they are irrefutable proofs of something that never happened.



They did. I encounter the resurrected Christ when I pray to Him too.



That's good. I know you don't believe it literally.



They were inspired by God's unerring spirit. That resulted in a compelling narrative that resulted in mass conversions. I think Paul would have looked like a flake telling the story of Christ and then talking about which parts were symbolic. There were plenty of clues in the narrative itself to allow His audience to see another perspective. That is clear from the gospels.

That's the big question, the narrative continues as if they telling a continuation of the same story. Why, suddenly, does it become allegorical? Since they all tell a slightly different story take one of them and follow it. Mary goes to the tomb, goes back and tells the apostles, John and Peter go to the tomb and see that it is empty, Jesus talks to Mary. In one of the versions Thomas touches Jesus and Jesus says he is not a ghost but flesh and bone.

I can see why Christians believe it all happened. But I cannot see when the story switched to being, obviously, allegorical. I can see why Baha'is need it to be allegorical, but if it was allegorical, how did the early Christians miss that? Some of the "eye witnesses" must have still been around and could have told them? But told them what? That they were eye witnesses to something that never happened?

 

[CG Didymus]

Again, the word we are looking for is “MANIFESTED” from the Greek word “PHANEROO”, to make visible, clear, manifest, known, that is contrary to gnosticism belief that Christ did not exist at all, therefore, there is NO literal crucifixion/death therefore, there is NO literal resurrection.

Why “MANIFESTED”?

Baha’i Faith claimed Baha’u’llah is the true manifestation of God. Baha’u’llah, a Persian/Iranian Shi’ite, means the glory of God, is the Messiah; in Judaism, the Christ; in Christianity, the twelfth Imam; in Islam, all in one, and who knows what else, perhaps Buddha and Krishna too. Does Baha’u’llah belong to the lineage of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel? NO! He belonged to Ishmael by Hagar.

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad/Ishmael, and because of thy handmaid/Hagar. In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice. For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." -Genesis 21:12

What is the meaning of, “For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.”?

From Abraham to Isaac, to Jacob, to Judah, to King David, to Mary, and to the Lord Jesus and compare this to Baha’u’llah, a Persian, who did not come from the 12 tribes of Israel but through Ishmael, by Hagar and Abraham, and not through Isaac.

“whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 9:5

We can read in Romans 9:5a “Christ as concerning the flesh”, i.e., through Abraham, then Isaac and NOT from Ishmael, then to Jacob and NOT from Essau, then to the line Judah, to King David, and then to Mary.

Also in Romans 1:3 “concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,” According to the flesh Christ came from the line of Judah to King David to Mary.

And in Romans 9:5b “who is over all, God blessed for ever” and then we read in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

We read in John 1:1 “and the Word was God” and in John 1:14 “And the Word became flesh”

We can read these verses repeatedly to eternity, from Romans to John, and we will end up with the same thing and that is, “the Word was God, and the Word became flesh”.

IOW, God that became flesh was “MANIFESTED” right in front of the apostles.

And this is what John was saying in his epistle. It says:

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life
1JN 1:2 “and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—“

Baha’i Faith can track the bloodline of Baha’u’llah back to Abraham, if they want to, and somehow they will think that it will guarantee them their sonship with the God of Abraham, but the scripture is very clear that it is through Isaac, and NOT by Ishmael or by Essau and all this is pointing to one direction, to this ONE SEED, and that is, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah BY MEANS OF MANIFESTATION or "WAS MANIFESTED" TO THE APOSTLES, i.e., LITERALLY.

In Galatian 3:16 “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

There is a special stress on the word “SEED” as referring to an individual, “which is Christ”, the Messiah.

Now, which one the TRUE MANIFESTATION OF GOD?

Christ or Baha’u’llah?

Thanks Neb, it's good to have at least a few Christians respond to the Baha'is. Most probably write them off as a false religion and a waste of their time.

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus partially fulfilled the prophecies for the Messiah but he did not fulfill the prophecies for the Messiah of the latter days (what Baha'is call the Return of Christ, the Promised One of All Ages). So many Jews did not accept Jesus since He did not fulfill all the Tanakh prophecies.

You need to separate what Jesus taught from what Christianity did later to distort the meaning of the New Testament and invent false doctrines such as the Trinity and Original Sin. What Jesus taught was true, but it got all but lost in the Christian doctrines.

And when did the distortions start? I've asked this of Baha'is several times, when did Christianity ever have and teach the truth about God? If from the beginning they were teaching that Jesus rose physically from the dead, then from the beginning, according to Baha'is, they were already wrong. If so, why would or should a Jew convert to a religion that taught something that was false?

 

[oldbadger]

....................... Science is not God. .......................

God is all. All things, all forces, and all else, and especially (imo) all knowledge.
Science is knowledge. All knowledge is God.

But then, I'm a Deist.

 

[oldbadger]

And when did the distortions start? ........................

Almost immediately after the public execution. The disciples had scarpered and only Magdalene, Salome and some other women had the guts to remain.

And I reckon that Celcius' account of Mary, her position as Temple-Virgin in a Greek Temple within hellenised Sepphoris (Zippori), the Roman retaking of Sepphoris from Judas BarEzekiah and her dalliance with a Roman soldier (Patronus?) which probably saved her life and freedom because all female residents were sold in to slavery, probably is the foundation upon which the myths were built. Nazareth is only about four miles to the south and was a hilltop working community in service to the city, hence Joseph's presence after the Romans left the area.

I reckon that could be the simple truth behind the legends and myths.

But it shatters the Abrahamic religions apart from Judaism. Blows 'em to the winds.