His Cause was resurrected and proof of that is Christianity today but His body was never resurrected. Thats a superstition.
-
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!
The Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The whole DEFINITION of resurrection is a reanimation of the body which had died.
The body decomposes after death.
It's called a miracle. Or do you put limits on what God can do? The resurrection of the dead is a big teaching in the Bible.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Sure, so that means the people claiming to have seen and touched Jesus and heard him say he is not a ghost but has flesh and bone are mistaken or are lying.
But this claim of his "cause" resurrected doesn't fit what the gospels say. So, how do Baha'is explain those claims? You can't say he was a ghost or a vision, because the claim is that he was real. And the claim is that his body didn't decompose. I don't see how Baha'is can even claim his "cause" was resurrected, when the disciples didn't do anything until after Pentecost.
And I still wonder why Baha'is are so dead set against God bringing Jesus back to life, yet Baha'is believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Why accept either one? Jesus didn't write this stuff. His followers did. Why couldn't they have invented the story? It's only some Christians that need the gospels to be the inerrant and infallible word of God. Baha'is don't need it to be, and don't believe it to be 100% authentic.
Ah, but you do need Abdul Baha to be correct. And he said it was the "cause" of Christ was resurrected and that only the spirit of Jesus rose... not his physical body. That makes me question whether Baha'is think for themselves or just accept whatever their religion says is true? If so, then don't complain when people in other religions take their Scriptures as being true... literally true.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There is nothing in the gospel accounts that would lead me to believe the reports of having seen the resurrected Jesus were not true. The fact that the disciples did not recognize him at first also points to the fact that Jesus was not raised in the same body he had as a human. Yes, I realize he showed the wounds on his arms, but this again was to demonstrate it was he, Jesus, not an imposter that materialized. And we do know that human beings cannot walk through walls.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
These are Bible stories that, in my opinion, are as credible as Greek mythology about demigods dying and being resurrected from the dead. Of course, you're entitled to disagree, and that's fine with me. In further response to your post, I'm reposting what I wrote on a similar topic in another thread.
A demigod being raised from the dead in order to redeem humanity was a common theme in Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions that predate both Christianity and the Bible. One example is Attis, the Phrygian-Greek god of vegetation, which is dated to 1250 BCE. If we were to replace the name Jesus with Attis, then we would have strikingly familiar savior stories. In the mythological stories of Attis, he was divinely born of a virgin; he was hung on a tree and died; he descended into the underworld after his death; he was resurrected from the dead after three days; and he brought salvation with him in his rebirth. There are several other similarities between the stories about Attis and Jesus in this article, "Attis: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Crucified and Resurrected after Three Days." And, like the myths about Attis, these other stories about Christ-like figures from Greek mythology and other ancient pagan religions predate Christianity and the Bible. I recommend learning more about Jesus in comparative mythology. You can start here: Jesus in comparative mythology. I recommend reading the following articles for more information as well. Of course, you can believe whatever you want.
10 Christ-Like Figures that predate Jesus
The Truth About Mythological Figures Similar To Jesus
Other Gods That Rose From the Dead in Spring Before Jesus Christ
A lot of Christians believe that the Bible is accurate because it includes actual places that exist today. They will use this as one of their justifications for believing that the Bible was divinely inspired by God. However, Greek mythology predates the Bible and contains references to factual places in Greece as well as references to multiple gods and goddesses. Like the Bible, which cites several factual places, Greek mythology cites several factual locations in Greece, including Athens, Crete, Delphi, Thebes, and Mount Olympus. But I've never met a Christian who believes Zeus, Hera, Ares, and Athena (as well as the other gods and goddesses) are real deities, despite the fact that there are references to actual sites in Greece that they could visit today, just as there are actual sites referenced in the Bible that they could visit today. I've met Christians who tried to use archaeological discoveries of biblical locations to claim that the Bible is true, but the same can be done with Greek mythology. Do archaeological discoveries prove that Greek mythology is true as well?
6 Famous Greek Mythology Locations
Greek Mythological Sites You Can Still Visit Today
Where should I go to see sites from Greek mythology?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Sure. This is not an obstacle to the doctrine of resurrection.
If you don't want to believe in a resurrection, I'm fine with that. I'm simply describing what the doctrine is.
King Phenomenon
Well-Known Member
All one has to do is look around
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Since you quoted no one, your remark has no context. What is it we are supposed to be looking around at?
I have been born again and resurrected from the dead also. That does not mean I entered my mother’s womb again as Christ explained to Nicodemus. Jesus debunked the superstitious beliefs of the understanding of born again not to mean physically. Nicodemus had a wrong interpretation of what being born again meant and Christ rightfully corrected his superstitious understanding. The same too I believe goes for the resurrection. It’s a misinterpretation. It is Christ’s Spirit which lives on in the hearts of His believers today not His physical body.
rocala
Well-Known Member
For me, one of the biggest failings of the resurrection myth is that Jesus was scourged prior to crucifixion. This is a damaging and disfiguring ordeal. Yet not one so called witness mentions any marks on him, only Crucifixion and spear ones as I recall. If the "witnesses" did see somebody, it was not the man on the cross.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
If you have not physically died (and by that I mean brain death) and come back, you cannot claim to be resurrected.
I thought what I said was understood. Of course I meant spiritually otherwise I would not be alive as bodily resurrection after death is not possible and is not what the Bible means.
As to the resurrection It means the body of the Cause of Christ was resurrected after 3 days of doubt amongst the disciples of His Divine Mission. After He was crucified the disciples had doubts about whether He was just an ordinary man nothing else. Mary gave them strength that He was indeed the Christ and that although the body had been destroyed the Christ Spirit was indestructible.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I understand that you are trying to speak figuratively, referring to some kind of spiritual resurrection. But when you do that, it causes confusion.
The problem is that there is no such thing as bodily resurrection so what is meant in the Bible needs to be reflected upon and a meaning sought that does make sense. The Christian interpretation is only an interpretation and needs to be questioned.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Again, if you reject a bodily resurrection, I'm fine with that. But the Bible does refer to a bodily resurrection.
Most definitely not. It is only an interpretation. On Mount Tabor the disciples saw many things but it was all a vision not a physical occurrence. Any vision of Christ after His death I believe was a spiritual vision not a physical one. This has been misunderstood for centuries and led to Christians believing their beliefs are superior to everyone else which is untrue but promoted by church fathers so their followers will not join other faiths.
But it is a superstition not upheld by science and contrary to reality which we know that our bodies decompose after death and so did Christ’s. It just hasn’t been found yet or its location may be known but kept secret as Christianity has been built on a myth of bodily resurrection and would collapse if that were proven to be untrue. The real miracle of Christ is that He transformed hearts.
But it is a superstition not upheld by science and contrary to reality which we know that our bodies decompose after death and so did Christ’s. It just hasn’t been found yet or its location may be known but kept secret as Christianity has been built on a myth of bodily resurrection and would collapse if that were proven to be untrue. The real miracle of Christ is that He transformed hearts.
Colt
Well-Known Member
We can conclude that the followers of Jesus were dealing with the accusation from the beginning:
| 2 Peter 1:16 |
| For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. |
I'm among those who believe that Jesus deliberately patterned aspects of his entire life around those various mythologies and existing Pagan beliefs so as to make the Jesus story more appealing to those who would ultimately adopt Paul's Christian religion about Jesus of Nazareth. Robert Sarmast did a series on this.
Last edited: