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

[CG Didymus]

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Do you understand what the word superseded means? The revelations of God from the past have been superseded by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.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.

Lots of religions have demons and evil gods and goddesses roaming around the spirit world. Were they wrong or was it just myth? Did the manifestation of that religion give misinformation or were his words misinterpreted? Or, was he always speaking symbolically but sometimes taken literally?

 

[Trailblazer]

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."

I am sure they have verses that they believe show that, but that does not make Jesus the Messiah. Only if Jesus actually returns will it make Him the Messiah... I am not holding my breath.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Yes, but that is not what I'm asking. Did the writers of the gospels believe the resurrection really happened? You read it. Do you think they were telling a symbolic story or a story they thought really took place?

The one prophecy I mention is the one that Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. If that is a legitimate prophecy, then that hasn't been fulfilled.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

The beliefs about the physically resurrection ascension and return of the same Jesus are false. The reason why those myths and legends and believed to be true by Christians are in this post I saw on another thread last night:

"It certainly seems to me you left out the single most important reason that almost (not quite) all human beings believe in whichever faith they do: because they were taught to from before they could begin to reason, by those they were genetically predisposed to believe and trust most. In other words, the most complete and effective form of brainwashing imaginable.

Strong enough, in fact, to overcome even the ability to reason independently that they achieve later in life."

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.

Liberal Christians have the same thing that Conservative Christians have... It is called the Bible. They are reading from the same Bible. They simply interpret the verses differently.

 

[siti]

But what does that prove for poor Baha'u'llah?

Well exactly! It means he - or rather his grandson - got some poor so and so to spend half a lifetime trying to concoct a fantastical genealogy just to prove a banal fact that genetics would eventually - not too many decades later - make such a commonplace and unremarkable fact of every human being's existence. Of course it would have been quite unreasonable to expect God to have revealed the truth about genetic succession accurately less than half a century before scientists figured it out for themselves - it just wasn't the right time for that particular truth to be revealed!

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

What apparently you do not understand is that the New Testament does not teach anything... Words sit on pages of a book until people read them and interpret them... Different people interpret those words differently. So, even of Jesus said, look, touch me, this is my flesh and bone, that could mean that Jesus was not flesh and bone but that Jesus had made Himself appear that way so he would convince then He was still alive in order to restore their faith in Him... Jesus could do miracles ya know. Or it is possible that the stories are not an accurate rendition of any real life events, and that is more plausible, that they made it all up.

 

[CG Didymus]

I am sure they have verses that they believe show that, but that does not make Jesus the Messiah. Only if Jesus actually returns will it make Him the Messiah... I am not holding my breath.

I've asked this a couple of times. If a Jew went before the Inquisition, should he convert to Christianity? The answer has to be no for a Baha'i, because Christianity had loads of false doctrines incorporated into their religion. But, when did Christianity ever have the real truth? The truth that is in line with Baha'i truth? Never. They were off from the start. But now add Islam. Should a Jew and a Christian have converted to Islam? Still no, because Islam went off the mark.

So when should a person follow any new religion or supposed "Messiah"? If the Baha'i are correct, then now isn't too bad, because you say you don't have divisions and sects in your religion. But not before now. Out of all the other religions, who has the truth? Who has the "pure" word of God? Why would anyone convert to another religion that still had false doctrines and had lost the "true" meaning of what God wanted to teach them?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

No Baha'i ever said that the genealogy proves Baha'u'llah. It is the Christians who say that the genealogy disproves Baha'u'llah, because they say Baha'u'llah was not a descendant of David.

So, the fact that both Jesus and Baha'ullah were descended from David says what?

May the best Messiah win... Too bad one already showed up, and the other one is nowhere to be found...

 

[CG Didymus]

What apparently you do not understand is that the New Testament does not teach anything... Words sit on pages of a book until people read them and interpret them... Different people interpret those words differently. So, even of Jesus said, look, touch me, this is my flesh and bone, that could mean that Jesus was not flesh and bone but that Jesus had made Himself appear that way so he would convince then He was still alive in order to restore their faith in Him... Jesus could do miracles ya know. Or it is possible that the stories are not an accurate rendition of any real life events, and that is more plausible, that they made it all up.

No, don't give me that. Read the gospel stories and tell me what they mean. Use you own brain instead of the Baha'i interpretation. Does it seem like they were relating what they thought really happened? If you still think it is symbolic, then when did they switch from telling of the events of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus to a symbolic story? If, at that time, you think they were telling of things they believed really happened, then we can pick it apart and say how absurd it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well exactly! It means he - or rather his grandson - got some poor so and so to spend half a lifetime trying to concoct a fantastical genealogy just to prove a banal fact that...

Who said anyone spent half a lifetime doing that or that they were trying to prove anything with it?
You are attributing motive where it does not exist.

 

[CG Didymus]

No Baha'i ever said that the genealogy proves Baha'u'llah. It is the Christians who say that the genealogy disproves Baha'u'llah, because they say Baha'u'llah was not a descendant of David.

So, the fact that both Jesus and Baha'ullah were descended from David says what?

May the best Messiah win... Too bad one already showed up, and the other one is nowhere to be found...

That's what we've been saying. The genealogy doesn't prove Baha'u'llah. How would anyone know? Who would have kept these kinds of records to know that they had to lead to some man in Persia? But why then show us all those little lines from one person to the next as if it is real?

 

[CG Didymus]

Who said anyone spent half a lifetime doing that or that they were trying to prove anything with it?
You are attributing motive where it does not exist.

I thought this was about the resurrection? Who brought up this thing about genealogy anyway? All I know is that Jesus is related to David... ooops, wait a minute I thought the line goes through the father? Jesus was born from a virgin. Okay, never mind, can we get off of all the genealogy stuff?

 

[Trailblazer]

Lots of religions have demons and evil gods and goddesses roaming around the spirit world. Were they wrong or was it just myth? Did the manifestation of that religion give misinformation or were his words misinterpreted? Or, was he always speaking symbolically but sometimes taken literally?

I do not know. It is possible there are things roaming around in the spirit world we have no knowledge of. Baha'u'llah said we cannot know about the spiritual world until we get there.

All I ever said is that the Devil does not exist as a physical entity in this world, although I do believe that angels and evil people exist in this world because I have seen them on TV.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, but that is not what I'm asking. Did the writers of the gospels believe the resurrection really happened? You read it. Do you think they were telling a symbolic story or a story they thought really took place?

How could I possibly ever know that? And I have not even read the whole story, just bits and pieces, so I am not the best person to ask.

The one prophecy I mention is the one that Jesus says there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. If that is a legitimate prophecy, then that hasn't been fulfilled.

Send that prophecy my way and I will analyze it for you.

 

[siti]

Who said anyone spent half a lifetime doing that or that they were trying to prove anything with it?
You are attributing motive where it does not exist.

No - I'm just making up stories and I don't think Baha'is have grounds for objection on that score - but you are correct though - if they had meant it to prove anything they probably wouldn't have scribbled the genealogies on the back of used envelopes and skipped over 70 or 80 generations with a dotted line...on the other hand, (he said rolling his eyeballs heavenward and shaking his head at the same time), if they weren't meant to prove anything, and are (as they are) obviously nonsense and (as they also are) woefully incomplete why did (as they certainly did) Trailblazer, Tony and other faithful Baha'is including no lesser personage than "the Guardian" himself feel the need to appeal to them at all?

 

[Trailblazer]

I've asked this a couple of times. If a Jew went before the Inquisition, should he convert to Christianity? The answer has to be no for a Baha'i, because Christianity had loads of false doctrines incorporated into their religion. But, when did Christianity ever have the real truth? The truth that is in line with Baha'i truth? Never. They were off from the start. But now add Islam. Should a Jew and a Christian have converted to Islam? Still no, because Islam went off the mark.

The short answer is that Jews and Christians and Muslims should have accepted all the Prophets that came after their own Prophet; so all Jews should have accepted Jesus until Muhammad came, and then they should have accepted Muhammad, until Baha'ullah came. Now Baha'u'llah has arrived, so those of all the former religions should accept Him because He is the latest Prophet that has come to earth.

So when should a person follow any new religion or supposed "Messiah"? If the Baha'i are correct, then now isn't too bad, because you say you don't have divisions and sects in your religion. But not before now. Out of all the other religions, who has the truth? Who has the "pure" word of God? Why would anyone convert to another religion that still had false doctrines and had lost the "true" meaning of what God wanted to teach them?

As I said above, everyone should follow the new Prophet when He comes to earth. That is why God sends Him. All religions have the same spiritual verities which are eternal, but each new Prophet brings a new message and new social teachings and laws that are pertinent to that age in history. The Baha'i Faith has the pure word of God in the sense that we have the original writings of Baha'ullah, and no other religion has that. I do not know why anyone would want to convert to an older religion, let alone one that has false doctrines that are completely incongruous with reason and science.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, don't give me that. Read the gospel stories and tell me what they mean. Use you own brain instead of the Baha'i interpretation. Does it seem like they were relating what they thought really happened? If you still think it is symbolic, then when did they switch from telling of the events of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus to a symbolic story? If, at that time, you think they were telling of things they believed really happened, then we can pick it apart and say how absurd it is.

I would most certainly read them if I ever had time. I simply have too many posts to answer and other things I have to do in my real life. I have 11 cats and 3 houses and tenants to take care of so reading the Bible is not on the top of my priority list.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what we've been saying. The genealogy doesn't prove Baha'u'llah. How would anyone know? Who would have kept these kinds of records to know that they had to lead to some man in Persia? But why then show us all those little lines from one person to the next as if it is real?

Only because Neb brought it up did I present the chart.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought this was about the resurrection? Who brought up this thing about genealogy anyway? All I know is that Jesus is related to David... ooops, wait a minute I thought the line goes through the father? Jesus was born from a virgin. Okay, never mind, can we get off of all the genealogy stuff?

It is not Baha'is who bring up genealogy, it is Christians... They say Baha'u'llah cannot be seated on the throne of David because He was not descended from David. But too bad, because He is already sitting there.....

 

[Trailblazer]

why did (as they certainly did) Trailblazer, Tony and other faithful Baha'is including no lesser personage than "the Guardian" himself feel the need to appeal to them at all?

The answer that I just told your sidekick is rather simple... Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah because He is not descended from David... So we show them that He was. If Christians do not ask us for proof of things we do not normally drag it out... The more they say we are wrong, the more we drag out to prove we are right... They are just throwing fuel on the fire that is already ablaze. They will never put it out because the Baha'i Faith is the Truth from God... I almost feel sorry for them but they have free will so it is not my fault.