1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by adrian009, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,410
    Ratings:
    +6,079
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    • Sorry, I'm jumping into this discussion kind of late, but I've got to disagree with you on this. Men can only tell us what they believe, but they can't convey to you what only God can. The Holy Spirit is the only means by which all spiritual truths can be discerned. A man can't "teach you all things," because no man knows "all things." A man can teach you only what He knows, and the Holy Spirit speaks for God. You may not be able to hear the Spirit audibly, but the Spirit is reliable at least.
     
  2. Tony Bristow-Stagg

    Tony Bristow-Stagg One Planet One People Please
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    12,555
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Christ the Son is Also the Father. Christ The Son resurected so He could come back and be the Father in His New Name, Baha'u'llah.

    This is the Holy Spirit we speak of and It is the same Holy Spirit that comes with each of Gods Prophets or Mesengers. Each time seen in a different way through the person that God chose to give the Message.

    This is how Christ can say the Father and I are One and then say the Father is greater than I. It is Christ as the Father Baha'u'llah that has brought us unto all Truth, this Message is of Christ, it is the Fist and it is the Last, the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End.

    There is only One God and God's Covernant is God will never leave us alone, he will always guide us. It is obvious when we look at the history of scriptures, that, that guidance has been in Many Names and given by Many Prophets and Messengers.

    It is when man gets attached to the Flesh and Names of the flesh, that they neglect that which is the Spirit. They without knowing it worship idols of their own making.

    Regards Tony
     
  3. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    The Holy Spirit speaks for God through men and they are called Prophets or Messengers of God. They then speak or write what they heard from God and thereby convey that truth to humanity. They are chosen by God to receive the Holy Spirit directly from God.

    Logically speaking, what fallible human beings believe the Holy Spirit is saying to them is unreliable because there is absolutely no way that fallible humans can know that what they are hearing is coming from the Holy Spirit. It could just as easily be their imagination and not the Holy Spirit at all. How do you think you can know?
     
  4. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Christians believe that only they or their church has the correct understanding of the Bible, but the fact that Christians do not agree means that either one of them is correct and the others are all wrong, or all of them are wrong, or all of them have part of the truth. I believe it is the latter.

    The reason for all these different beliefs is that the same verses can have many different meanings and the Bible is not at all easy to understand in many of its verses. Many are allegorical and nobody can say for sure what those allegories are.
     
  5. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Sorry, I am not "into" Bible interpretation since I am not familiar enough with the Bible since I was never a Christian. ;)
     
  6. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Yes, that is what I meant. :)
     
  7. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I agree. Nothing is impossible to God.

    What is impossible is for any humans to prove what God has done. ;)
     
  8. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    There is only one Father and that Father is God. The devil does not exist as an entity, only as a metaphor.
    Referring to the Bible is not the same thing using the Bible. Baha'is have to refer to the Bible if they are talking to Christians. We do not have to use the Bible for anything else since we have the Writings of Baha'u'llah. :D
     
  9. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Your definition of picketing leaves much to be desired. Jesus did not prevent or dissuade anyone from entering the Temple, which is what picketing means. This is what he did:

    Mark 11:15-17
    15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
    16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
    17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

    This would have been taking place in the outermost Court of the Gentiles, which was the least holy of the sections of the Temple, and also the roomiest. Jesus is throwing out those who are making exorbitant profits by ripping off the pilgrims. This included the moneychangers who sold Tyrian ‘official temple’ coinage to the foreign pilgrims who did not have it. As I said long ago, it could not have been the priests doing this since they would not be allowed to touch unofficial and therefore idolatrous money. Others sold ‘blemish free’ doves, the typical offering of the poor, no doubt at high prices. People carrying vessels through the area might suggest there was all sorts of buying and selling going on, not necessarily anything to do with the Temple.

    Picketing would imply not wanting anyone to go in, which is not the case here. It is those who were dishonoring the Temple that were the problem. Jesus called it ‘of all nations the house of prayer’. Obviously, Jesus is not dishonoring the Temple as picketing would imply. He is honoring the Temple and with it the priests who perform the Temple functions.

    So what? Mark wrote in Greek. He deliberately chose the word sindónwhich is both burial shroud and nightshirt. There were other words he could have chosen if he wished. In Mark 2:21, Mark 5:27, Mark 6:56, Mark 9:3, Mark 10:50, Mark 11:7-8, Mark 13:16 and Mark 15:34, he uses himation, a general purpose word for any kind of clothing. In Mark 6:9, he uses chitōn, a tunic. In Mark 12:38 and Mark 16:5, he uses stole, which means a long robe.

    Plenty of choices, but Mark chooses to have the young man wear a sindón, a nightshirt or burial shroud. On the few occasions when Mark chooses a different word from the generic himation, a reason can be seen. In Mark 6:8-9, Jesus is being specific: a walking staff, no beggar’s bag, no bread, no money, sandals, not two tunics. In Mark 12:38 it is the scribes, the honored authorities who wear long robes. In Mark 16:5, it is the young man, speaking with authority of the resurrection of Jesus, who wears a long robe.

    But the young man on the Mount of Olives wears none of those things. He wears a sindón. Or perhaps ‘wears’ is not the most appropriate word. In the Greek, the word used is periballō which is to throw around. The form of the verb is passive perfect, suggesting that the sindón had been placed around him. I have been calling it a nightshirt, something with a hole for the head and sleeves for the arms. The young man was being held but he escaped, leaving the sindón behind. It would be easier to escape if instead of being a nightshirt that he was wearing, the sindón was simply wrapped around him, just as implied by {I]periballō[/I]. It sounds very much like Mark was saying that the young man had a burial shroud wrapped around him. Wearing just a night shirt in the open on a chilly night is improbable enough. But a living person wearing a burial shroud is very unlikely to be meant literally. This is symbolism.

    IMO Mark used the ambiguity of sindón as both nightwear, tying into the sleeping / denial of Jesus triples, and as burial shroud, connecting with the burial of Jesus where sindón appears again, as a way of bracketing the time from the arrest of Jesus to the burial of Jesus. This is the time of loss of faith. Surrounding all this and the Last Supper where Jesus says he will be betrayed and killed is: on the frontend the woman pouring the ointment on the head of Jesus which he calls anointing him for burial (Mark 14:1-9), and on the backend with the young man (that phrase again) wearing a robe of authority saying that Jesus has risen from the dead, a restoration of faith. And why did the women go to the tomb in the first place? To anoint the body of Jesus which could not be done because the Sabbath was about to begin. Connecting clues all over.

    The naked young man being symbolic sounds a whole lot more likely than that it was Mark acting crazy on a cold night and not even seeing the things you claimed he witnessed because he ran away.

    On the contrary, as I have already discussed, the existence of a real historical Jesus seems like the most credible option as the starting point of the whole NT.

    The people Paul writes to all over the Empire already know about a religious figure named Jesus who was crucified and was called Son of God and who supposedly rose from the dead, although some of the people balk at believing that. Paul does not have to tell them those things. He provides explanations about what they really mean. Anyway, why make up a story about a supposed Messiah getting crucified?

    Mark incorporates a number of realistic sounding pericopes that could easily have been early traditions about Jesus. They are accurate in their presentation of times and places that no longer existed when Mark wrote. They portray a Jesus that, when the Pauline influences and supernatural trappings are removed, is entirely believable in his arguments with the Pharisees of that time and his reaction to the bazaar like atmosphere in the Temple. Mark 15 sounds quite believable in its description of how the Jewish court changed the charge from Jesus being the Messiah (called Son of God) to King of the Jews, which would get the attention of the Romans. Also, who would invent a story whose Jewish hero came from Galilee where people talked funny and there were altogether too many Gentiles in the neighborhood?
    So it seems to me that a real historic Jesus is a perfectly reasonable position to take. The stories told about him are another matter. But the word ‘myth’ does not really fit those stories. Myth in the original sense refers to traditional stories containing supernatural elements, these stories embodying cultural values and beliefs. The stories are only nominally historical, really residing in an eternal realm outside time rather than a worldly one. The stories told about Jesus are not properly called traditional, being of recent creation when they were first distributed. They were also intended to be taken as historical, taking place in the real world in a very recent timeframe. Each of the Gospels has a clear individual agenda that led to the invention of much of its material. Other mythos were not so obvious in their agendas, embodying their values ‘under the covers’ so to speak, rather than ‘in your face’ as the Gospels do it.

    Since I do not consider the existence of Jesus to be mythical, in the sense of being untrue, and since I do not consider the NT to be mythical in the classic sense, I do not think ‘myther’ is an appropriate label.
     
  10. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
    But the questions is why would the clouds during the ascension be symbolic of doubt? You might as well explain how all the things dealing with the empty tomb and appearances are symbolic of something else. And then explain if the writers knew they were writing something symbolic. I've asked that several times, because it doesn't make sense that they are reporting on the events of the life of Jesus, get to the crucifixion, then suddenly, go into symbolic mode? Why?
     
  11. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
    I'm a few pages behind, so forgive me if somebody has already asked this, but isn't "Messiah" the same as "anointed one"? And there's been lots of anointed ones in Judaism. And, I've always heard that the New Testament said that Jesus was the promised Messiah. But, with the Baha'is, you also have Muhammad that has to be shown to be the Messiah also.
     
  12. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
    That's the big question... is the bodily resurrection taught in the New Testament? The early Christians didn't have the benefit of the Baha'i Faith telling them that is was all make believe... that it didn't happen, but was a symbolic story. I don't see them misinterpreting anything about the resurrection. That is what the New Testament says. Now the question is did the writers tell the truth or did they make it up... or that they knew it never happened but wrote a story to make it sound like he had come back to life.
     
  13. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
    Do all Baha'is believe this?
     
  14. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
  15. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
    Do you think the New Testament teaches that Jesus rose from the dead? If it does, then is the New Testament the truth and the Word of God? If it doesn't, then how do Baha'is explain all those stories that imply Jesus did rise from the dead? A real explanation please, not just "oh it was symbolic." If you really believe all the events described are symbolic, then tell me how they are symbolic.
     
  16. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    7,591
    Ratings:
    +3,145
    Religion:
    undecided
    The rest of Isaiah 11
    12 He will raise a banner for the nations
    and gather the exiles of Israel;
    he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
    from the four quarters of the earth.
    13 Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish,
    and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed;
    Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
    nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.
    14 They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west;
    together they will plunder the people to the east.
    They will subdue Edom and Moab,
    and the Ammonites will be subject to them.
    15 The Lord will dry up
    the gulf of the Egyptian sea;
    with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand
    over the Euphrates River.
    He will break it up into seven streams
    so that anyone can cross over in sandals.
    16 There will be a highway for the remnant of his people
    that is left from Assyria,
    as there was for Israel
    when they came up from Egypt.
    How does the rest of the chapter relate to Baha'u'llah? Also, I suppose you believe Shoghi Effendi's writings are infallible? How about letters written on his behalf?

     
  17. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    To paraphrase Baha’u’llah, Son of man coming on the clouds means that the return of the Christ Spirit will appear in the form of another human being, which Baha’is call a Manifestation of God. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, these things hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ.

    Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although they were delivered from the womb of their mother, Manifestations of God have in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, their true habitations are the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, they soar in the heaven of the divine presence.
     
  18. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    More than one person can be called a Messiah. In other words there has been more than one Messiah, although there is only one Messiah that was prophesied to appear in the latter days. It just so happens I asked about this on Baha'i Forums and I got a really good answer from a very knowledgeable Baha'i. He said:

    "Most don't realize it, but the Bible gives the title of "Anointed One" to both Jesus and the Persian Zoroastrian Emperor Cyrus the Great, who liberated the Jews from captivity.

    Or Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they (plural) will be called the sons of God."

    So even the titles of "Son of God" and "Messiah/Anointed One" are titles conferred on multiple people.

    It's like how there have been countless people bearing the title "King of Denmark".

    As for multiple interpretations of the same prophecy: That's a common Baha'i idea that multiple people can fulfill the same prophetic role. It's why Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah were all in some sense the Second Coming of Jesus."
     
  19. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,854
    Ratings:
    +2,884
    Well yes and no...that is yes its symbolic when an element of the account (such as, say, the resurrection) is inconvenient for the Baha'i interpretation - and no it is literal when someone wishes to construct a bizarre fairy tale genealogy that proves Baha'u'llah's rightful heirship to Messianic status. It is, however, quite likely, that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah were descendants of biblical characters (or at least the real people on whom the biblical characters were based) - but so was almost everyone else in the middle east, and by virtue of just an occasional genetic intersection with populations beyond the middle east grafting in their family lineages to other further flung ancestral lines, almost everyone in the world. So a genealogy really isn't evidence after all - even if it, itself, were remotely supported by evidence - which of course these are not.

    Here's a short and accessible BBC article from a few years back that explains how not only Jesus (assuming there really was such a person) but everyone alive in 1st century Palestine was probably a descendant of King David (assuming there really was such a person).

    Tracing the world's common ancestor
     
    #1099 siti, Feb 21, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2018
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    22,477
    Ratings:
    +6,363
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    If that is what the New Testament says, why do not all Christians believe in the bodily resurrection? Some literal and progressive Christians who are reading the same Bible do not believe it was bodily, but rather believe that Jesus died and remained dead and Jesus ascended to heaven in His spirit body at that time:

    They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.
    What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

    I do not think there is any way to know if the writers told the truth or made it up. We simply need to decide what makes the most sense to us, all things considered.
     
Loading...