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

[Trailblazer]

Do all Baha'is believe this?

They should, since it has been confirmed by the authoritative writings of the Baha'i Faith:

1559. Bahá’u’lláh was a Descendent of Abraham Through Both Katurah and Sarah—Jesse, Son of Sarah, was the Father of David and Ancestor of Bahá’u’lláh

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá’u’lláh is descended: The Master says in 'Some Answered Questions', referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá’u’lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '…for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David…', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá’u’lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David.

"The Guardian hopes that this will clarify the matter for you. It is a tremendous and fascinating theme, Bahá’u’lláh's connection with the Faith of Judaism, and one which possesses great interest to Jew and Christian alike." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

No, I do not think the New Testament teaches that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. Do you?

I am not very familiar with what is written about the resurrection so I cannot explain it or give alternate explanations of the events. But it would not matter anyway because I do not believe it just because it is written on a page or pages. Why would I? There is no way to prove it actually happened as described.

How do I explain the stories? There are many ways to explain the stories but I am no Bible expert. Here is one way they were explained and I am sure there are many more: What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

It would be much harder to explain why Baha'u'llah is not the Messiah.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Thanks for the article. I guess that does not prove that Jesus is the Messiah after all...

Baha'is never tried to use it to prove that Baha'u'llah was the Messiah. We only drag it out when Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah because He was not descended from David.

 

[oldbadger]

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 11:16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
Jesus is throwing out those who are making exorbitant profits by ripping off the pilgrims.

A picket deters people from moving to or from a place.

it could not have been the priests doing this since they would not be allowed to touch unofficial and therefore idolatrous money.

Oh, Rough Beast....... Could the Priests touch the Temple coinage, with graven image and features of Baal struck on each for all to see? Was not the Temple 1/2 shekel an idolatrous coin as well?
:faceplam:

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. ......................The stories are only nominally historical, really residing in an eternal realm outside time rather than a worldly one.
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.

So Jesus is historical, but the stories in the gospels are 'another matter', while being 'nominally historical'?

I think it's time to leave it there, Rough Beast, I need to leave our discussion at this point. It was nice to read your posts.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

CG Read This part of John 6:50“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Look at the symbolism all the way through this record of what Christ has said and take note of the key to understanding these passages, which is "....63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.”...."

Abdul'baha gives us insight on this;

Question. -- The Christ said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die." What is the meaning of this utterance? (John 6:51, 50.)

Answer. -- This bread signifies the heavenly food and divine perfections. So, "If any man eateth of this bread" means if any man acquires heavenly bounty, receives the divine light, or partakes of Christ's perfections, he thereby gains everlasting life. The blood also signifies the spirit of life and the divine perfections, the lordly splendor and eternal bounty. For all the members of the body gain vital substance from the circulation of the blood. In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 26, it is written: "Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." It is evident that the bread of which the disciples ate and were filled was the heavenly bounty; for in verse 33 of the same chapter it is said: "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." It is clear that the body of Christ did not descend from heaven, but it came from the womb of Mary; and that which descended from the heaven of God was the spirit of Christ. As the Jews thought that Christ spoke of His body, they made objections, for it is said in the 42nd verse of the same chapter: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Reflect how clear it is that what Christ meant by the heavenly bread was His spirit, His bounties, His perfections and His teachings; for it is said in the 63rd verse: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." (Abdu'l-Baha : Some Answered Questions)

Now we come to where Jesus said; 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?"

How can that be? Jesus was born of Mary and he Grew to the age He was, Jesus Body had never ascended before, it is obvious Jesus is not talking about His Body and to make it more obvious that the soon to happen ascension would be Spiritual, Jesus says this right away; 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

The symbolism is clear, it is but a small shift in ones Frame of Reference.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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?

I see all the stories are steeped in Symbolism, some have many facets, some are more direct.

It is all about connecting our heart with God. Read the passages, contemplate the manifold meanings and ask God for understanding. You will note with the answers that Baha'i's give about the Bible which are not direct quotes, will differ, albeit slightly in understanding. This is because each person quotes from their Frame of Reference and understanding of who Christ was and Is, Baha'u'llah has taken this understanding to a whole new level. we are but at the dawn of a new day, we are yet to see the sun in its full splendor.

Regards Tony

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

A picket deters people from moving to or from a place.

Oh, Rough Beast....... Could the Priests touch the Temple coinage, with graven image and features of Baal struck on each for all to see? Was not the Temple 1/2 shekel an idolatrous coin as well?
:faceplam:

So Jesus is historical, but the stories in the gospels are 'another matter', while being 'nominally historical'?

I think it's time to leave it there, Rough Beast, I need to leave our discussion at this point. It was nice to read your posts.

In Mark 11 and the related passages in the other Gospels, Jesus threw out those he considered to be hurting the sanctity of the Temple. Picketing would imply that he was trying to keep people out of the Temple, which would fit into your claim that Jesus was opposed to the priesthood. Jesus did not try to keep anyone out. He acted in support of the holiness of the Temple and by implication the priesthood.

The Temple coinage was a necessary compromise. Using other ’foreign’ coins that were often debased would be worse than using coins of a known and high purity minted by Jews, although under Roman control. And the other coins would have ‘idolatrous’ figures on them anyway. Also, the other coins from all over the Empire might be difficult to use in the region since the relative value might be unknown. We have been through this several times before but you keep repeating yourself about it. What practical alternative would you have to offer, considering that the region was under Roman dominance and options were limited?

I do not know what ‘nominally historical’ means, but here is my position again.

There probably was a historical Jesus, this being the best explanation for what we see in the earliest writings, specifically the widespread knowledge of a crucified Jesus even before Paul gets into the act, and the realistic description of the religious, social and political environment given in Mark, even though that world was long gone before Mark wrote. The miracle working, quasi-divine Jesus of the Gospels was not historical. The Gospels are very visibly purpose-written works that not only contradict each other but do so intentionally to further different agendas.

 

[Truthseeker]

In Mark 11 and the related passages in the other Gospels, Jesus threw out those he considered to be hurting the sanctity of the Temple. Picketing would imply that he was trying to keep people out of the Temple, which would fit into your claim that Jesus was opposed to the priesthood. Jesus did not try to keep anyone out. He acted in support of the holiness of the Temple and by implication the priesthood.

The Temple coinage was a necessary compromise. Using other ’foreign’ coins that were often debased would be worse than using coins of a known and high purity minted by Jews, although under Roman control. And the other coins would have ‘idolatrous’ figures on them anyway. Also, the other coins from all over the Empire might be difficult to use in the region since the relative value might be unknown. We have been through this several times before but you keep repeating yourself about it. What practical alternative would you have to offer, considering that the region was under Roman dominance and options were limited?

I do not know what ‘nominally historical’ means, but here is my position again.

There probably was a historical Jesus, this being the best explanation for what we see in the earliest writings, specifically the widespread knowledge of a crucified Jesus even before Paul gets into the act, and the realistic description of the religious, social and political environment given in Mark, even though that world was long gone before Mark wrote. The miracle working, quasi-divine Jesus of the Gospels was not historical. The Gospels are very visibly purpose-written works that not only contradict each other but do so intentionally to further different agendas.

I believe in the quasi-divine Jesus because Baha'u'llah said so, and there is plenty of evidence in favor of Baha'u'llah being a Prophet. Yes, it's true there are some contractions between the four gospels.

 

[CG Didymus]

Nowhere in the Bible did it say that Baha’u’llah will replace the Lord Jesus on His return or 2nd coming. The Lord Jesus will NOT come again in the body form. This is how the 2nd coming of the Lord Jesus will be according to the Bible.

Please read these verses.

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;" -1Thessalonians 4:16

"then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -1Thessalonians 4:17

On Christ 2nd coming, Christians will be “be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air”.

It did not specifically said that it was Baha’u’llah, who would come for the 2nd time, did it? NO, it did not, meaning there is NO room for you to INSERT Baha’u’llah in these verses, right?

In Thessalonians 1:9-10 it says, "...you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

And in 9:19-20, "19 For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? 20 Indeed, you are our glory and joy."


I'm not a Christian, and like a lot a things about the Baha'is, but I don't like how they re-interpret the Bible to suit their beliefs. For me this clearly says implies that is Jesus that is returning and that God raised him from the dead. Only problem is... it uses that darn word "Glory". So I assume the Baha'is could say that is says "we will Baha in the presence" and "you are our Baha and joy." But at least it says when Jesus comes.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

So all religions that believe in a evil spirit being and demons are wrong? And, again, they took something symbolic and made it literal?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Yes, I'm fine with that as a plausible explanation on the return, but how about going the other direction? Jesus ascended into the clouds. And again, we have the situation where the gospel writers are presenting this as an actual event... not as an allegorical story that has some mystical spiritual meaning.

 

[CG Didymus]

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."

I don't know off hand, but I'm sure Christians have their verses that show that Jesus is "The Messiah" and not just another "anointed one/messiah."

 

[CG Didymus]

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

Next you'll tell me we're all related to Genghis Khan. I'm checking Ancestry.Com right now. I gotta get to the bottom of this. Anyone have some DNA from Baha'u'llah, King David and Abraham?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

If they were thinking they were telling the truth, then they were wrong. If they made it up, they were telling lies. Either way it makes Christianity into a religion based on false beliefs. However, I do believe a religion can be made up of myths and legends and still have the power to change people... but it usually is when those myths and legends and believed to be true.

So, for liberal Christians, what is it that they believe? And no matter what those things might be, I wonder how they know that those things are true? Conservative Christians know the "Truth", because it is in the Bible. They have something that they believe they can depend on for the real truth. But, like you say, so many Christian churches use the same Bible, but they vary on what they believe is the truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, I do not think the New Testament teaches that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. Do you?

I am not very familiar with what is written about the resurrection so I cannot explain it or give alternate explanations of the events. But it would not matter anyway because I do not believe it just because it is written on a page or pages. Why would I? There is no way to prove it actually happened as described.

How do I explain the stories? There are many ways to explain the stories but I am no Bible expert. Here is one way they were explained and I am sure there are many more: What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

It would be much harder to explain why Baha'u'llah is not the Messiah.

I do believe that the New Testament teaches that Jesus came back to life. His body sure was different though. He allegedly says that he is not a ghost but has flesh and bone, yet he can appear and disappear and float off into the sky. Unfortunately, I don't see how the Baha'i Faith can so easily explain the resurrection story away by saying it is all symbolic. Why not just say, like liberal Christians, that they made it all up.

 

[siti]

Next you'll tell me we're all related to Genghis Khan. I'm checking Ancestry.Com right now. I gotta get to the bottom of this. Anyone have some DNA from Baha'u'llah, King David and Abraham?

No, Genghis Khan lived about 800 years ago so his genes (if they have survived at all) will not have spread that far yet...but, if such as a person as King David really existed about 1000 years before Christ, if his genetic line did not become extinct it would by the 1st century have permeated the entire local population, and by another 2000 years later most of the world.

Anyway, you just have to do a bit of math - Baha'u'llah (and everyone else of course) had 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on so that for the nth generation of his ancestors he would have had 2^n ancestors. If King David really existed, there must have been at least 100 generations between him and Baha'u'llah 2800 about years later. That means in King David's time the number of direct ancestors of Baha'u'llah - and every other person alive in the middle east - would be 2 to the 100th power - which is more than 10^30. Clearly that is a preposterously impossible number. The population of the entire world at that time was probably no more than 100 million or 10^8. Obviously there was a lot of inbreeding in 100 generations even if it were through fairly distant relationships but still, it means that almost all of the family lines that survived from King David's time would be represented in Baha'u'llah's ancestry somewhere - and in the ancestry of almost everyone else alive in the middle east if not the world. Its definitely an odds on bet that if King David really existed and if his lineage did not become extinct, his genetic heritage would be represented in the genome of the "Effulgent Glory".

 

[CG Didymus]

CG Read This part of John 6:50“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”59These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

Look at the symbolism all the way through this record of what Christ has said and take note of the key to understanding these passages, which is "....63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.”...."

Abdul'baha gives us insight on this;

Question. -- The Christ said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die." What is the meaning of this utterance? (John 6:51, 50.)

Answer. -- This bread signifies the heavenly food and divine perfections. So, "If any man eateth of this bread" means if any man acquires heavenly bounty, receives the divine light, or partakes of Christ's perfections, he thereby gains everlasting life. The blood also signifies the spirit of life and the divine perfections, the lordly splendor and eternal bounty. For all the members of the body gain vital substance from the circulation of the blood. In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 26, it is written: "Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled." It is evident that the bread of which the disciples ate and were filled was the heavenly bounty; for in verse 33 of the same chapter it is said: "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." It is clear that the body of Christ did not descend from heaven, but it came from the womb of Mary; and that which descended from the heaven of God was the spirit of Christ. As the Jews thought that Christ spoke of His body, they made objections, for it is said in the 42nd verse of the same chapter: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Reflect how clear it is that what Christ meant by the heavenly bread was His spirit, His bounties, His perfections and His teachings; for it is said in the 63rd verse: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing." (Abdu'l-Baha : Some Answered Questions)

Now we come to where Jesus said; 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?"

How can that be? Jesus was born of Mary and he Grew to the age He was, Jesus Body had never ascended before, it is obvious Jesus is not talking about His Body and to make it more obvious that the soon to happen ascension would be Spiritual, Jesus says this right away; 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

The symbolism is clear, it is but a small shift in ones Frame of Reference.

Regards Tony

This is what I asked...

"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."
​

You keep explaining the wrong thing. Sure, flesh dies and decomposes. If we have an eternal spirit, sure, it can float off into the spiritual world. Sure, Jesus used symbolism. But, did the writers go from writing about the crucifixion of Jesus, and I assume they were telling of actual events, and then, all of a sudden, go into telling of a symbolic story of a resurrected Jesus? That's not what they did. They keep telling the story as if they are reporting actual facts. So, I believe that is what is taught in the New Testament, and I think that is what the followers were expected to believe.

Now whether or not it is true is a different question. For some Christians it is the central doctrine and belief. For others, it sounds like pure make believe and a tactic to get people to follow their religion. It gives them a Savior who cleanses them from their sins. It gives them a ticket into Heaven. And, it keeps them out of hell. All they have to do is believe and obey the commands of Jesus. Too simple. But, like I said, whether the New Testament is the truth literally or symbolically is a different question.

 

[Trailblazer]

So all religions that believe in a evil spirit being and demons are wrong? And, again, they took something symbolic and made it literal?

I do not know about evil spirits and demons but there is no entity called Satan so Christians are wrong about that.

Do you understand what the word superseded means? The revelations of God from the past have been superseded by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. In short, that means Baha'u'llah was right and the older religions were wrong in how they interpreted their scriptures regarding Satan.

Matthew 16:23-26 “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Jesus was not talking to an actual "being" called Satan. He was talking to his lower material selfish lustful nature, what Baha'u'llah referred to as the Satanic Self. That makes perfect sense in the context of the verses.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, Genghis Khan lived about 800 years ago so his genes (if they have survived at all) will not have spread that far yet...but, if such as a person as King David really existed about 1000 years before Christ, if his genetic line did not become extinct it would by the 1st century have permeated the entire local population, and by another 2000 years later most of the world.

Anyway, you just have to do a bit of math - Baha'u'llah (and everyone else of course) had 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on so that for the nth generation of his ancestors he would have had 2^n ancestors. If King David really existed, there must have been at least 100 generations between him and Baha'u'llah 2800 about years later. That means in King David's time the number of direct ancestors of Baha'u'llah - and every other person alive in the middle east - would be 2 to the 100th power - which is more than 10^30. Clearly that is a preposterously impossible number. The population of the entire world at that time was probably no more than 100 million or 10^8. Obviously there was a lot of inbreeding in 100 generations even if it were through fairly distant relationships but still, it means that almost all of the family lines that survived from King David's time would be represented in Baha'u'llah's ancestry somewhere - and in the ancestry of almost everyone else alive in the middle east if not the world. Its definitely an odds on bet that if King David really existed and if his lineage did not become extinct, his genetic heritage would be represented in the genome of the "Effulgent Glory".

Cool! So I'm probably a descendent of King David too! Thanks. But what does that prove for poor Baha'u'llah? Well, I guess he's okay. He's got it down on paper, in black and white. He's got all his descendants going right back beyond David all the way to Abraham. Wow. Plus, they have Isaiah chapter 11 that proves he was descended from David.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, I'm fine with that as a plausible explanation on the return, but how about going the other direction? Jesus ascended into the clouds. And again, we have the situation where the gospel writers are presenting this as an actual event... not as an allegorical story that has some mystical spiritual meaning.

How is it possible that a the physical body of Jesus ascended into the upper atmosphere? That is not congruent with science and the law of gravity. How can a physical body survive with no oxygen?

If Jesus' body ascended into the clouds, then where did it go? Where is it now? The prophecies have all been fulfilled, so why hasn't Jesus returned from the sky from the clouds? After all, that is part of the story.

Do you believe a story just because someone wrote it in a book? Mind you, God did not write the Bible and neither did Jesus.