• 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!

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

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I really have a problem with all the suffering in the world, including my own. Abdu’l-Baha wrote that this world is a storehouse of suffering but it is not as bad for some people as for others and some people do not even seem to suffer much at all. The unequal distribution of suffering bothers me more than anything else. Sure, according to Baha’i we are supposed to be better off for our suffering, particularly in the afterlife, lots of good that does us till we get there. :oops: However, I have to admit I am a lot stronger and more spiritual because of all my suffering, so that validates what the Baha’i Faith teaches.

You have lived in some of the same places I have. :) I attended my first two years of college in Santa Barbara. During Christmas vacation 1970 of my first year of college I went to visit my older brother in Bellingham, WA and he had been a Baha’i for about two years. He had all the books that had been published in English and I read most of them, and two weeks later I declared. I went to grad school in Moscow Idaho in 1975-1977 and I lived in Coeur d’ Alene for about a year after that, then I moved to Salt Lake City, then to Redding, CA, and then to the Olympia, WA area, where I have been since 1988.

So I am very familiar with all your stomping grounds and I might even know some of the Baha’is you went teaching with. My mother and brother lived in Port Angeles, WA for about 20 years, so I visited there often and I have also been to Nanaimo on vacation… It sure is a small world. ;)

So when you went to Bible studies you became convinced the NT was true? And then when you realized that your friends were not living up to the standard Jesus taught you were disappointed and put religion on the back burner for a while? I tend to be very outspoken about sexual matters because I consider it a big problem. I am a person with a lot of restraint and morals, so it was never a problem for me until after I got married and then I proceeded to make up for lost time. Had I read the fine print in Gleanings I might have thought twice. :rolleyes: I do not think Baha’is understand the high standard to which we are called, even if we are married. Being married does not give us an excuse to live for the flesh. I know full well where that leads so I am grateful I am no longer in its grip. Suffice to say that I finally discovered what Baha’u’llah and Jesus said, that the heart cannot be divided between God and selfish desires. At a certain point we have to choose or else we are only nominal believers, even hypocrites.

I put Baha’i on the back burner for decades for personal reasons, some of which nobody knows about except my husband. Beginning at about age 31 I went for help and was in recovery for my childhood issues for about 15 years; counseling, 12 step programs and homeopathic treatment. During those years that and college was my focus so I did not have time for Baha’i activities and was not interested. It is not as much that I felt unworthy as that I was not interested because I am not a social butterfly. I still believed in Baha’u’llah and the way I planned to serve was to be a counselor and homeopath, but that did not work out owing to things that interfered.

Then I lost my job of many years in 2002 (I still had a job but I was demoted into another field owing to state budget cuts) and that was very traumatic, so all I did was look for jobs for eight years, until I finally got the job I have now, the best job I have ever had and will retire from. I was pretty angry at God all those years, for that and other reasons. Then I went through my real estate phase from 2008 – 2012, and having three houses and two with tenants took most of my time, that and the double digit cats we had, in addition to working full time.

It was not until January 2013 that I stumbled upon the Planet Baha’i forum and that started a whole new phase of my life. I realized I could see and socialize with Baha’is without having to go to Feasts and other activities sand I also learned a lot from those Baha’is. I then branched off onto some other forums, primarily for teaching purposes but also to socialize. I also started my own forum which was active for about a year, before I got really active on a believer/nonbeliever forum and did not have the time.

The more I learned about Baha’i from reading and talking to the Baha’is on PB, the more I knew it was the Truth from God, and that hit me alike a ton of bricks once I realized what Baha’u’llah had written, since I had not seriously read His Writings before, nor had I understood them. Suffice to say, my entire life now revolves around God and Baha’i, and my husband who is also a Baha’i (since 1964) takes care of the cats and other stuff around the house, so I can be on the computer.

On the other forums I have posted on, there are a few Jewish posters. One is a very progressive Jew and she is agnostic and the other two are elderly men and theyare orthodox Jews. So I have learned a lot about Judaism from them. I know why they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, because He did not fulfill most of the Torah/Tanakh prophecies, and they do not believe there were ever going to be any more prophets after Malachi so Jesus could not be a prophet either. Also, they believe the NT is just a made up storybook and there is a lot of truth to that. Abdu’l-Baha said that the Torah is more authentic than the NT and it seems that way to me, although it is still very difficult to interpret, since there are many possible meanings.

The Jews do not have a legitimate case for rejecting Baha’u’llah just because everything in their prophecies has not been fulfilled yet. Some of the prophecies were to be fulfilled when the Messiah came and during His lifetime and others were to be fulfilled during the Messianic Age, which is going to extend far into the future. So that is why they have not all been fulfilled yet.

The Jews do exactly the same thing as the Christians do; they have specific interpretations of their scriptures that are very narrow and nothing else will do. This is just so obvious, from an outsider observing them and what they post. On the forum I still post on, the Jews and Christians have been arguing for decades. They take the same scriptures and disagree about the meanings. It gets to the point of insults often and since there are no rules enforced there it gets ugly.

(Continued on next post)
My wife was from Seattle and has a lot of relatives up there. Her son lives in LeBam over by Raymond and he works in Chehalis. We've gone with him and his wife to Anthony's in Olympia for dinner on a few occasions.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
My wife was from Seattle and has a lot of relatives up there. Her son lives in LeBam over by Raymond and he works in Chehalis. We've gone with him and his wife to Anthony's in Olympia for dinner on a few occasions.
I know where Raymond is, we used to drive through there on our way down to the Oregon coast...
I know where Anthony's is but I have never been to Anthony's and I have lived here for 30 years; then again I rarely get out these days. ;)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Who other than Christians say the tomb was empty? Who other than Christians say Jesus was resurrected? And they say they saw him and touched the wounds and saw that he was flesh and bone. This is not a symbolic story. It could be a fabrication but not something meant to be symbolic. Therefore, the Baha'i explanation doesn't make sense to me.

What works for some Christians clearly doesn't work for those most are not Christian.

Its taken me a while in life to disentangle myself from my Christian past. Often our perspective is strongly influenced by the traditions we have grown up with including the culture of the dominant religion.

I have no problem seeing the allegory with the biblical stories, whereas I do with taking a literal approach.

Seeing the gospels as pure human fabrication rather than divinely inspired fails to address the profound influence these books have had on countless souls, myself included.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
What works for some Christians clearly doesn't work for those most are not Christian.

Its taken me a while in life to disentangle myself from my Christian past. Often our perspective is strongly influenced by the traditions we have grown up with including the culture of the dominant religion.

I have no problem seeing the allegory with the biblical stories, whereas I do with taking a literal approach.

Seeing the gospels as pure human fabrication rather than divinely inspired fails to address the profound influence these books have had on countless souls, myself included.
We're not talking about other "Bible" stories. We're talking about the resurrection story. I've asked so many times... the gospel writers tell of the events in the life of Jesus, were they talking about real events or things they made up? Was he crucified? Was he buried? Did he come back to life?

I say that it seems like the writers wrote the stories as if they really happened. Early Christians believed they really happened. Sure, it's unlikely that such a thing could have really happened knowing what we know today. But how about back then? I think they would have believed it real and very possible. What I can't see is why the writer's would tell of the events about the crucifixion, and then, suddenly, change to allegory for the rest of the story?

That's why I think it's more likely that if indeed the physical resurrection never took place, then the writer's took traditions and fabricated the resurrection and the whole Jesus story, adding the virgin birth, turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons and healing the sick. All of which Baha'is probably make allegorical also, except the virgin birth. And even with that, I doubt Baha'is believe that a star moved across the sky leading the Magi. So what is the difference between telling a story as if real, but only meant it to be allegory and a fiction story?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That is a progressive thought. If all the Messengers are from God, then we get it wrong often, every time in fact as all the Messengers all faced rejection.

All we have to do is admit that and learn from it. It takes maturity before we can admit we made a mistake, as a child we always like to be right.

Regards Tony
Are all messengers that claim to be from God really from God? Do all messengers define God the same? Do some of these messengers get it wrong? Is there such a thing as a false prophet?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Okay, so here's my question. (I don't know; maybe I already asked it 73 pages ago.) What on earth point would there even be to a "non-literal" resurrection? I don't even understand what that could possibly mean? Either Jesus Christ was resurrected or He wasn't. He either came back to life or He didn't. Asking about a "non-literal" resurrection is kind of the same thing as asking about a "non-literal" pregnancy? :rolleyes:
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Okay, so here's my question. (I don't know; maybe I already asked it 73 pages ago.) What on earth point would there even be to a "non-literal" resurrection? I don't even understand what that could possibly mean? Either Jesus Christ was resurrected or He wasn't. He either came back to life or He didn't. Asking about a "non-literal" resurrection is kind of the same thing as asking about a "non-literal" pregnancy? :rolleyes:
I think an important part of the Baha'i argument is that scientifically the resurrection and ascension of a literal physical body is impossible. Therefore, there must be another explanation, a symbolic one. But I don't see any evidence of any thing but a literal resurrection being presented in the gospels.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Okay, so here's my question. (I don't know; maybe I already asked it 73 pages ago.) What on earth point would there even be to a "non-literal" resurrection? I don't even understand what that could possibly mean? Either Jesus Christ was resurrected or He wasn't. He either came back to life or He didn't. Asking about a "non-literal" resurrection is kind of the same thing as asking about a "non-literal" pregnancy? :rolleyes:
23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?

Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42 we find: “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?” Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”

Observe that it is said, “The Son of man is in heaven,” while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, so here's my question. (I don't know; maybe I already asked it 73 pages ago.) What on earth point would there even be to a "non-literal" resurrection? I don't even understand what that could possibly mean? Either Jesus Christ was resurrected or He wasn't. He either came back to life or He didn't. Asking about a "non-literal" resurrection is kind of the same thing as asking about a "non-literal" pregnancy? :rolleyes:

The resurrection narrative simply conveys with clarity and power the message that through the Teachings of Christ we can have Eternal life and draw closer ot God. The Word of God has the power to transform of our lifes that we can become heavenly rather than bound by our human nature.

Religion is filled with allergory, myth, metaphor and symbolism. Why should the stories of the gospels be any different?

The problem with a literal resurrection is that we becoome locked into seeing the gospels as literal history. That was never the intention of the gospel writers, instead it was to convey the mystery of Christ's teachings and the example of His Heavenly life.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
We're not talking about other "Bible" stories. We're talking about the resurrection story. I've asked so many times... the gospel writers tell of the events in the life of Jesus, were they talking about real events or things they made up? Was he crucified? Was he buried? Did he come back to life?

Why should the stories in the gospels be different from other bible stories?

You believe the gospel stories were a complete fabrication. The Christians believe the gospels are completely true. The Baha'is believe the stories of spiritual significance, based in part on the actual life of Christ.

I say that it seems like the writers wrote the stories as if they really happened. Early Christians believed they really happened. Sure, it's unlikely that such a thing could have really happened knowing what we know today. But how about back then? I think they would have believed it real and very possible. What I can't see is why the writer's would tell of the events about the crucifixion, and then, suddenly, change to allegory for the rest of the story?

The gospel writers seem to be talking about a literal resurrection because thats how you and I have been conditioned to see them over many centuries. However we are making big assumptions about what was written over two thousand years ago.

This arguement that it is all literal or all allegory is the failed argument of the Christain fundamentalists. Modern biblical scholars have provided compelling arguments that support the gospel narratives being both historic and myth.

That's why I think it's more likely that if indeed the physical resurrection never took place, then the writer's took traditions and fabricated the resurrection and the whole Jesus story, adding the virgin birth, turning water into wine, walking on water, casting out demons and healing the sick. All of which Baha'is probably make allegorical also, except the virgin birth. And even with that, I doubt Baha'is believe that a star moved across the sky leading the Magi. So what is the difference between telling a story as if real, but only meant it to be allegory and a fiction story?

I think you need to step out of a modern mind set and reflect what life would have been like for people two thousand years ago.

Why does matter so much to you if some of the gospel stories are literally true and some are not?
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Why should the stories in the gospels be different from other bible stories?

You believe the gospel stories were a complete fabrication. The Christians believe the gospels are completely true. The Baha'is believe the stories of spiritual significance, based in part on the actual life of Christ.



The gospel writers seem to be talking about a literal resurrection because thats how you and I have been conditioned to see them over many centuries. However we are making big assumptions about what was written over two thousand years ago.

This arguement that it is all literal or all allegory is the failed argument of the Christain fundamentalists. Modern biblical scholars have provided compelling arguments that support the gospel narratives being both historic and myth.



I think you need to step out of a modern mind set and reflect what life would have been like for people two thousand years ago.

Why does matter so much to you if some of the gospel stories are literally true and some are not?
I believe that if they are not literally true, then they are fictional stories. The Baha'is claim that all the writers of the NT told some historically accurate things but added symbolic things to it that still sounded as if they were historical.

But still, the Abdu'l Baha explanation doesn't work, because after 3 days the disciples didn't start living the teachings of Jesus, and thus bring life to the cause. It wasn't until the appearances and the Holy Spirit coming at Pentacost that they came to life.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
@Trailblazer and @adrian009, thank you for your input to this thread. I don't want to just ignore either of your posts, but I'm afraid I'm just at a point in my life where debating whether Jesus Christ's resurrection was real or fake just holds no interest for me. To "resurrrect" means to bring back to life, pure and simple. Jesus was dead. Then, on the third day, He came back to life. There is absolutely nothing either of you could say to me to convince me that it was all just symbolic of something else. Likewise, I'm sure I could never convince either of you that He did, in fact, return to life as He said He was going to. He conquered death and through Him, so will we. I have a very strong conviction of that and it's not going to change. I think this is one of these topics on which I probably should just have kept quiet in the first place. But, better late, I guess, than never.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe that if they are not literally true, then they are fictional stories. The Baha'is claim that all the writers of the NT told some historically accurate things but added symbolic things to it that still sounded as if they were historical.

But still, the Abdu'l Baha explanation doesn't work, because after 3 days the disciples didn't start living the teachings of Jesus, and thus bring life to the cause. It wasn't until the appearances and the Holy Spirit coming at Pentacost that they came to life.

I offered ideas about this on 'Christ has returned, what should we have looked for?"

You quoted;

2nd Thessalonians 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

Notice Paul says do not let people deceive you about Christ returning with false teachings, until the verse 3 and 4 events transpired. Pentecost is thus a false concept.

Those applicable verses 3 & 4, were both fulfilled in the time of Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

I see the clear fulfillment is the Rebellion against Baha'u'llah prior to His Declaration by Babi's that broke the Covernant. (Refer to answer in other topic)

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
@Trailblazer and @adrian009, thank you for your input to this thread. I don't want to just ignore either of your posts, but I'm afraid I'm just at a point in my life where debating whether Jesus Christ's resurrection was real or fake just holds no interest for me. To "resurrrect" means to bring back to life, pure and simple. Jesus was dead. Then, on the third day, He came back to life. There is absolutely nothing either of you could say to me to convince me that it was all just symbolic of something else. Likewise, I'm sure I could never convince either of you that He did, in fact, return to life as He said He was going to. He conquered death and through Him, so will we. I have a very strong conviction of that and it's not going to change. I think this is one of these topics on which I probably should just have kept quiet in the first place. But, better late, I guess, than never.

Thank you for asking the question you did and contributing. RF for me, is about learning about other people's faiths and understanding why they believe what they do.

Many of us have beliefs that contradict each other. Who is right and who is wrong is not nearly as important as the manner in which we talk to each other and share our differing perspectives.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that if they are not literally true, then they are fictional stories. The Baha'is claim that all the writers of the NT told some historically accurate things but added symbolic things to it that still sounded as if they were historical.

But still, the Abdu'l Baha explanation doesn't work, because after 3 days the disciples didn't start living the teachings of Jesus, and thus bring life to the cause. It wasn't until the appearances and the Holy Spirit coming at Pentacost that they came to life.

Processes to me are often more important than events. Pentacost was one event, the first appearance of Christ to His disciple(s) another. The process of acquiring faith and certiude began with the first appearances and reached a climax at Pentacost. The most important part of story of Christ for us as individuals and our communities is whether or not we have Faith in Him and our lives are genuinely transformed. We can believe in a literal resurrection with absolute conviction, but if we are rude and disrespectful of others and do not live the life, it is in vain.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
@Trailblazer and @adrian009, thank you for your input to this thread. I don't want to just ignore either of your posts, but I'm afraid I'm just at a point in my life where debating whether Jesus Christ's resurrection was real or fake just holds no interest for me. To "resurrrect" means to bring back to life, pure and simple. Jesus was dead. Then, on the third day, He came back to life. There is absolutely nothing either of you could say to me to convince me that it was all just symbolic of something else. Likewise, I'm sure I could never convince either of you that He did, in fact, return to life as He said He was going to. He conquered death and through Him, so will we. I have a very strong conviction of that and it's not going to change. I think this is one of these topics on which I probably should just have kept quiet in the first place. But, better late, I guess, than never.
No, that was the best answer I've ever heard. You're a wise women not to get entangled in the mess. No one convinces anyone of anything it seems. Maybe years later, but who knows. Thanks Katzpur.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The resurrection narrative simply conveys with clarity and power the message that through the Teachings of Christ we can have Eternal life and draw closer ot God. The Word of God has the power to transform of our lifes that we can become heavenly rather than bound by our human nature.

Religion is filled with allergory, myth, metaphor and symbolism. Why should the stories of the gospels be any different?

The problem with a literal resurrection is that we becoome locked into seeing the gospels as literal history. That was never the intention of the gospel writers, instead it was to convey the mystery of Christ's teachings and the example of His Heavenly life.
"That was never the intention of the gospel writers.."
Luke 1-3
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
Now do Baha'is and liberal Christian scholars take it literally? No, but to say that it was not the intention of the writers to be telling literal history? I'm not so sure. From Luke in his introductions to his two books, how can you think that? He says Jesus showed himself alive with "many convincing proofs". What does Luke mean by that? Something that really happened or something symbolic?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
No, that was the best answer I've ever heard. You're a wise women not to get entangled in the mess. No one convinces anyone of anything it seems. Maybe years later, but who knows. Thanks Katzpur.
Hey, CG. Thank you very much. I know it's important for people to be willing to speak out in defense of their beliefs, but I think it's also important to know when nothing will be gained by doing so. So, I very much appreciate your comment.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
No, that was the best answer I've ever heard. You're a wise women not to get entangled in the mess. No one convinces anyone of anything it seems. Maybe years later, but who knows. Thanks Katzpur.
Hey, CG. Thank you very much. I know it's important for people to be willing to speak out in defense of their beliefs, but I think it's also important to know when nothing will be gained by doing so. So, I very much appreciate your comment.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
"That was never the intention of the gospel writers.."
Luke 1-3
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Acts 1
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
Now do Baha'is and liberal Christian scholars take it literally? No, but to say that it was not the intention of the writers to be telling literal history? I'm not so sure. From Luke in his introductions to his two books, how can you think that? He says Jesus showed himself alive with "many convincing proofs". What does Luke mean by that? Something that really happened or something symbolic?

We need to be honest about what we know and the uncertainty that surrounds some long held and cherished views about the gospels.

The author of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are generally considered considered the same. The two books combined make up 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution of any one author. The author is not named in either book. Christian tradition from the second century has attributed the Authorship to man called Luke a companion of Paul. However this idea has been largely rejected by most biblical scholars who emphasise the many contradictions between the account of Acts and the authentic Pauline letters. The date of composition is now thought to be about 80 - 90 AD, maybe even as late as 90 - 110 AD. Some scholars suggest that Luke was being revised well into the second century.

Most of the gopsel of Mark is used in Luke, as well as much of Matthew. Luke is thought to be baseed on other sources such as Q and L which we do not have the originals. He may have been influenced by classical authors Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote a history of Rome, and the Jewish historian Josephus, author of a history of the Jews.





Luke was written to be read aloud to a group of Jesus-followers gathered in a house to share the Lord's supper. The author assumes an educated Greek-speaking audience, but directs his attention to specifically Christian concerns rather than to the Greco-Roman world at large. He begins his gospel with a preface addressed to "Theophilus": the name means "Lover of God," and could be an individual or simply any Christian. Here he informs Theophilus of his intention, which is to lead his reader to certainty through an orderly account "of the events that have been fulfilled among us." He did not, however, intend to provide Theophilus with a historical justification of the Christian faith – "did it happen?" – but to encourage faith – "what happened, and what does it all mean?"

Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia
 
Top