What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

[IndigoChild5559]

The prophecies say that the Messiah would rise again.

No they don't. You are applying a figurative prophecy about Israel to the messiah erroneously.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Evangelical Christians claim the authors of Matthew and John were first hand witnesses to the events they wrote of. However there is insufficient evidence IMHO to conclude that with any certainty the Gospel writers were first hand witnesses. If they were not then they relied on the stories they heard, some that were being spoken by second and third generation Christians at the time the first Gospels were in circulation.

Okay, the writers were not eye witnesses. So the "inventors" of the "allegorized" tales about the resurrection were not the apostles nor the gospel writers but second or third generation Christians making up myths and legends about how Jesus rose from the dead?

So at some point mythologised aspects of the life of Jesus became seen as fact. The Gospels are outstanding works of their day IMHO. They are not the ramblings of illiterate and uneducated common folk. They understood allegory and metaphor as it was the modus operandi of the One who was the focal point of their adoration.

Wait, now the gospel writers were the ones that came up with the "allegory" that Jesus rose from the dead? But it was a "mythologized" aspect of the life of Jesus that became seen as fact? But at first it wasn't?

I see the Gospel accounts as being carefully crafted religious narratives that quite consciously consider the needs of the Church in the decades after Christ’s crucifixion. They are carefully written presenting Jesus as the promised Messiah, the Son of God, the bearer of a new Covenant and Teachings from God. The Gospel of Matthew makes over sixty references to the Hebrew Bible. Every aspect of the Gospel accounts is imbued with meanings that are both obvious and subtle from the nativity narratives to the resurrection. So I don’t see the author’s sole purpose to create an historical document, rather an account that will encourage and inspire some of the early Churches. We know many of the stories you refer are not literal so while the stories may have been written as if they actually happened, their true purpose was to provide spiritual sustenance for their intended audiences.

So, although written as if true, they were fictional stories meant to "inspire" people? But those people took it too far by getting "inspired" that Jesus had really come back to life?

The Gospel writers were definitely smart enough to write allegorical stories.

So wait, were they second or third generation Christians writing down the legends and myth that had circulated about Jesus' resurrection, or did each one of the gospel writers, independently come up with a similar resurrection story? But, because they are all similar, isn't more likely that there were traditions being told about the resurrection and each gospel writer based their story on those traditions?

There are beliefs that on the day of resurrection, the dead will rise out of their graves. As the Holy Books are spiritual books could this not mean the spiritually dead will be raised to the life of belief? Such an understanding is in harmony with reason and science. Religion without science and reason, I believe, descends into superstition. Just my opinion.

Yes, the science of that day would have seen such a thing as clearly not being possible, so, therefore, it must be metaphorical. No, I don't think so. People even today believe things that aren't scientifically possible... like a man dying and rising again. And that there is an evil spirit being named Satan. And that God created the world and the universe in six days. But 2000 years ago the common people would have doubted the resurrection.

THIS also seems to me to be a strong reason to reject the notion of a literal resurrection, for how can this be taken literally given what we now know about the cosmos?

Yes, now you can reject it all you want. We're a lot smarter now, and won't take all these religious things as being real. Except that there is an all loving invisible God and that he made special people that were perfectly polished mirrors to come teach the rest of us all about this invisible God. So what does science say about the existence of God? Or how about the soul?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Okay, the writers were not eye witnesses. So the "inventors" of the "allegorized" tales about the resurrection were not the apostles nor the gospel writers but second or third generation Christians making up myths and legends about how Jesus rose from the dead?

Wait, now the gospel writers were the ones that came up with the "allegory" that Jesus rose from the dead? But it was a "mythologized" aspect of the life of Jesus that became seen as fact? But at first it wasn't?

You’re putting words in my mouth that I’m not speaking. The earliest NT book that mentions the resurrection is Paul’s first epistle to Corinthians thought to be written around 50-58 AD. So the resurrection narrative was in circulation long before the Gospels were written. Did Paul meet Jesus? He had a mystical experience on the road to Damascus a long time after Jesus ascended to heaven. Yet he claimed to have met the resurrected Jesus.

Did Paul invent the resurrection narrative? No one knows for certain. However we know the resurrection didn’t happen literally and at some stage it came to be understood as a literal event by increasing numbers of Christians.

So, although written as if true, they were fictional stories meant to "inspire" people? But those people took it too far by getting "inspired" that Jesus had really come back to life?

At some stage myth and fact become inseparable and the myth is believed to be fact. Name a religion that is free from such a phenomenon?

So wait, were they second or third generation Christians writing down the legends and myth that had circulated about Jesus' resurrection, or did each one of the gospel writers, independently come up with a similar resurrection story? But, because they are all similar, isn't more likely that there were traditions being told about the resurrection and each gospel writer based their story on those traditions?

The Gospel accounts of the resurrection were based on stories already in circulation as is clearly evident from Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15:4-9.

 

[CG Didymus]

You’re putting words in my mouth that I’m not speaking.

Which words?

So what of the disciples and close associates of Jesus? Did they believe Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven? That is unlikely as they never witnessed such a thing. What of the Gospel writers? We don't know for certain who they were. The Evangelical Christians claim the authors of Matthew and John were first hand witnesses to the events they wrote of. However there is insufficient evidence IMHO to conclude that with any certainty the Gospel writers were first hand witnesses. If they were not then they relied on the stories they heard, some that were being spoken by second and third generation Christians at the time the first Gospels were in circulation.

So let's look at "your" words again. You say it is "unlikely" the disciples believed in the resurrection. You say that it is uncertain that the gospels writers were "first" hand witnesses. So, if they weren't then what? You say that they would have then been basing their stories on the stories being circulated by second and third generation Christians. I still don't understand why Baha'is need to make it so complicated. If you don't want to believe that Jesus came back to life, just say that it was myth. That nothing about the resurrection story is true. Jesus is dead and gone. But then you say...

However we know the resurrection didn’t happen literally and at some stage it came to be understood as a literal event by increasing numbers of Christians.

"we know the resurrection didn't happen literally"? Do Evangelical Christian know this? And how do "we" know this? Is there evidence from the early Church leaders that you can point to that shows that they did not believe it? And then when the Church started to take it literal?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Gospel accounts of the resurrection were based on stories already in circulation as is clearly evident from Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15:4-9.

Is there evidence from the early Church leaders that you can point to that shows that they did not believe it?

I looked up believed about the resurrection Justin Martyr. Here's some of it...

Chapter 9. The resurrection of Christ proves that the body rises
If He had no need of the flesh, why did He heal it? And what is most forcible of all, He raised the dead. Why? Was it not to show what the resurrection should be? How then did He raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body, confirming in it the promise of life. Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, You have not yet faith, see that it is I; Luke 24:32, etc. and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He ate honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), He was taken up into heaven while they beheld, Acts 1:9 as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith, and seen in works.​

 

[CG Didymus]

At some stage myth and fact become inseparable and the myth is believed to be fact. Name a religion that is free from such a phenomenon?

I have no problem with people making up myths about their Gods. But I also believe, to get the people to follow the laws and rules of their Gods, that the religious leaders of those people had to present those myths as being real. And what we have is the gospels is the writers presenting a story, as if real, that Jesus came back to life. And in Acts it says this...

Acts 1:3 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.​

Many "convincing" proofs that he was alive? I don't see how these stories were ever meant to be myths and allegories. Why not do as other people that don't believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus and just say that it was made up myth... embellished stories that never happened. Why go to all the trouble to make the stories "true" allegorically? And yes I do know why... that way Baha'is can say they believe in the Bible and in Jesus.

But then why isn't the virgin birth allegory? Why isn't God allegory? Baha'is make Satan an allegory. The same with hell, so why take anything as "literally" true? Even Jesus... Why not make everything about him allegorical? But really, how different is what you say and what I'm saying? That, if isn't all literally, 100% true, then, I think, it is all embellished stories. Which is what you're saying too, right? Except, you believe those embellishments had some highly important spiritual message. Whereas, I say that the "important" message was that Jesus conquered death, therefore, a person can trust that he can forgive them of their sins and save them from hell. But, the people were supposed to believe all those things really happened.

 

[CG Didymus]

Is there evidence from the early Church leaders that you can point to that shows that they did not believe it?

Hey Adrian here's some more early Church leaders talking about the resurrection...

Irenaeus argued that his conception of orthodox Christianity was passed down to him from the apostles who knew Jesus personally, while the Gnostics and Marcionites were distorting this apostolic tradition... (H)e sought to disprove what he saw as incorrect interpretations of scripture on the part of Gnostics such as Valentinus. Irenaeus sought to present "what was understood as an authentic form of century-old Christian tradition against various forms of Gnosticism." The Valentinians believed that resurrection was a purely spiritual phenomenon, while Irenaeus insisted that Christians would be raised from the dead in fleshly bodies.
​

So Irenaeus says that what he believe is what was past down from the Apostles themselves. That the "purely" spiritual resurrection was a heretical belief of the Gnostics. Which is similar to what Baha'is say is the "real" truth about the resurrection. So Baha'is are in more agreement with the Gnostics?

I found a little bit about Polycarp...

Polycarp is important as he’s a bridge to the original apostles themselves. According to his student Irenaeus... Polycarp was a student of the apostle John, and he knew other apostles, although they go unnamed...
Polycarp refuted the Gnostic notion that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus were all imaginary episodes of essentially ethical or mythical significance. These were historical happenings.
​

Tertullian wrote a book about the resurrection of the flesh. Here's another link to another site which opened with this...

The heretics against whom this work is directed, were the same who maintained that the demiurge, or the god who created this world and gave the Mosaic dispensation, was opposed to the supreme God. Hence they attached an idea of inherent corruption and worthlessness to all his works — among the rest, to the flesh or body of man; affirming that it could not rise again, and that the soul alone was capable of inheriting immortality.
​

Anyway, if traditional Christianity , the one that came from the apostles and early Church leaders, is wrong, then when was Christianity ever right? If the body dies and only the soul lives on then the Gnostics and those that had similar teachings were the ones that were correct? Yet, those early Church leaders claimed there was a direct line to what they taught right back to the Apostles. So, for them, there was no "myth" that came to be believed as "fact". They say the resurrection was fact.

 

[CG Didymus]

No they don't. You are applying a figurative prophecy about Israel to the messiah erroneously.

So I take it Jews have never believed that the Messiah would die and be resurrected, but why did the Pharisees believe in a resurrection of the dead. And, is it similar to what Christians believe that people will come back to life into a "gloried" body. And, do some Jews today still believe in some type of resurrection of the dead?

 

[CG Didymus]

Another thing is that if all these happenings were literal then dead bodies rising out of graves would have been an event which could not have gone unnoticed by the entire population at the time, yet there is no record of such a happening.

I still believe it was a ‘vision’ not seen in the physical world. but similar to Mount Tabor.

So we have those dead people, Jesus and a couple others in the NT that supposedly came back to life. Here's one of them, Lazarus...

John 11:1 Now a man named Lazarus was sick... 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.” 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days...

11... “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” 12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days... 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him... 21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died... 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” ...32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

38 Jesus... came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 “Take away the stone,” he said. “But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.” 41... they took away the stone... 43... Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”
​

So, what do you think? Nothing in the story sounds like it was a vision to me. It is told as if all this really happened, but... because a dead man comes back to life after four days, this is another place where Baha'is have to say that it is not literal. So how do you make it allegorical? And, how would the readers 2000 years ago know it was allegorical? And again, even Christians reading it today believe it literally happened.

It makes it clear that he is really dead and been dead for four days. Martha knows about a resurrection in the last days. How is that explained by Baha'is? Since Lazarus is physically dead, Baha'is would say that his spirit has already gone to the next spiritual world, so what is then supposed to happen in the last days? For Baha'is it would be nothing wouldn't it? Yet, Martha has a belief, I guess from Judaism, that there will be a resurrection in the last days. But this is not that. This is Jesus, through the power of God, making a dead person come back to life. Baha'is say impossible... never happened. I'd say then "okay" it is a made up story to make Jesus into a miracle man... into someone who has power over death. But, if it is made up, then... he is not a miracle man... and he doesn't have power over death?

And this is just one story. The Bible and NT is filled with miraculous stories. Baha'i, if they say one is scientifically impossible, then they have to make all of them impossible and all of them fictional, allegorical, embellishments added in to the story. Which, if Baha'is are going to do that, then they should do it with the virgin birth story also. Unless Baha'is believe that is "scientifically" possible? That a baby can form without the DNA from the father. Or, did God, through his Holy Spirit, put in some special "spiritual" DNA to make Jesus truly "God's Son"?

Anyway, the easy explanation would have been just to say that the resurrection never happened... That his followers made it all up. But Baha'is have stuck themselves into explaining how these resurrection verses were never meant to be taken literally but were always meant to be taken metaphorically. And I know Abdul Baha' has already given his explanation, which I don't think is all that convincing, so that is why I would like you or any Baha'i to explain the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Thanks.

​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So I take it Jews have never believed that the Messiah would die and be resurrected, but why did the Pharisees believe in a resurrection of the dead. And, is it similar to what Christians believe that people will come back to life into a "gloried" body. And, do some Jews today still believe in some type of resurrection of the dead?

There is a humungous difference between saying the Messiah will die no different than any other human being and resurrect at the end of time no different than any other human being, and saying that his death atones for our sins and his resurrection was uniquely three days later.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is a humungous difference between saying the Messiah will die no different than any other human being and resurrect at the end of time no different than any other human being, and saying that his death atones for our sins and his resurrection was uniquely three days later.

But what is that resurrection in the last days? Is it a reuniting a physical body with a soul and spirit kind of thing? Because that is what the Baha'is are saying is not going to happen... That the physical body is over with and done. The spirit that was within the body lives on and goes to a spiritual world and never comes back into a physical body. So, for them, any religion that believes in reincarnation or any type of a physical resurrection are wrong.

 

[rational experiences]

What humans learn.

Reactive earth O body changes caused by nuclear sun attack. Origin began attack finished attack. Theology reaction.

Human advice story teller.

Not God. Needed to make a statement no man is God.

You would reason why a man made precise statements but also contradictory statements.

Basis human science was introduced.

What contradicted what was natural. And then became unnatural never natural.

Human science thesis first. To think about what is natural.

CH that arose a thesis about what existed and why it existed.

Obvious was not owner change.

String theory where it came from why it owned natural presence. Origin.

If you said why it was removed then it owned a theory why it was removed.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So we have those dead people, Jesus and a couple others in the NT that supposedly came back to life. Here's one of them, Lazarus...

John 11:1 Now a man named Lazarus was sick... 3 So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.” 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” 5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days...

11... “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.” 12 His disciples replied, “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” 13 Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. 14 So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15 and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days... 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him... 21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died... 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” ...32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

38 Jesus... came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 “Take away the stone,” he said. “But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.” 41... they took away the stone... 43... Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”
​

So, what do you think? Nothing in the story sounds like it was a vision to me. It is told as if all this really happened, but... because a dead man comes back to life after four days, this is another place where Baha'is have to say that it is not literal. So how do you make it allegorical? And, how would the readers 2000 years ago know it was allegorical? And again, even Christians reading it today believe it literally happened.

It makes it clear that he is really dead and been dead for four days. Martha knows about a resurrection in the last days. How is that explained by Baha'is? Since Lazarus is physically dead, Baha'is would say that his spirit has already gone to the next spiritual world, so what is then supposed to happen in the last days? For Baha'is it would be nothing wouldn't it? Yet, Martha has a belief, I guess from Judaism, that there will be a resurrection in the last days. But this is not that. This is Jesus, through the power of God, making a dead person come back to life. Baha'is say impossible... never happened. I'd say then "okay" it is a made up story to make Jesus into a miracle man... into someone who has power over death. But, if it is made up, then... he is not a miracle man... and he doesn't have power over death?

And this is just one story. The Bible and NT is filled with miraculous stories. Baha'i, if they say one is scientifically impossible, then they have to make all of them impossible and all of them fictional, allegorical, embellishments added in to the story. Which, if Baha'is are going to do that, then they should do it with the virgin birth story also. Unless Baha'is believe that is "scientifically" possible? That a baby can form without the DNA from the father. Or, did God, through his Holy Spirit, put in some special "spiritual" DNA to make Jesus truly "God's Son"?

Anyway, the easy explanation would have been just to say that the resurrection never happened... That his followers made it all up. But Baha'is have stuck themselves into explaining how these resurrection verses were never meant to be taken literally but were always meant to be taken metaphorically. And I know Abdul Baha' has already given his explanation, which I don't think is all that convincing, so that is why I would like you or any Baha'i to explain the raising of Lazarus from the dead. Thanks.

​

There is no doubt that Christ had the power to perform miracles but His real miracles consisted of the transformation of the character of the individual and society. Were a man physically healed still he must one day die but to be spiritually resurrected means to attain eternal life.

In Luke the Lazarus story was recorded as a parable, in John a miracle.

I believe that in such circumstances, unless confirmed by an authoritative source, that there is a moral to stories like this i.e. dead rising from graves, Adam and Eve and such because the Bible is not a novel but a spiritual Book. Look at verses that speak of baptism by fire. These are allegories with deeper insights not to be taken literally.

The obstacle which prevents the so-called religious man from accepting the teachings of God is literal interpretation… Let us awake! Let us acquire a new intelligence in order to interpret the symbols and become acquainted with the mysteries. Man has a sacred power which permits him to discover the inner significances, the reality of invisible things. Ponder over these statements, so that the portals of divine wisdom and infinite knowledge may open before thy face… The holy books are full of significance and must never be taken literally. – Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, pp. 35-38.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no doubt that Christ had the power to perform miracles but His real miracles consisted of the transformation of the character of the individual and society. Were a man physically healed still he must one day die but to be spiritually resurrected means to attain eternal life.

In Luke the Lazarus story was recorded as a parable, in John a miracle.

I believe that in such circumstances, unless confirmed by an authoritative source, that there is a moral to stories like this i.e. dead rising from graves, Adam and Eve and such because the Bible is not a novel but a spiritual Book. Look at verses that speak of baptism by fire. These are allegories with deeper insights not to be taken literally.

The obstacle which prevents the so-called religious man from accepting the teachings of God is literal interpretation… Let us awake! Let us acquire a new intelligence in order to interpret the symbols and become acquainted with the mysteries. Man has a sacred power which permits him to discover the inner significances, the reality of invisible things. Ponder over these statements, so that the portals of divine wisdom and infinite knowledge may open before thy face… The holy books are full of significance and must never be taken literally. – Abdu’l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, pp. 35-38.

There is a difference when the writer is quoting Jesus and saying, "They will be baptized with fire" then saying, like in Daniel, "The person was thrown into a fire and not harmed." Luke is clearly quoting Jesus telling a story. In John, the writer is telling of actual events, supposedly. Call it a lie. Call it fictional. But don't take what is written as historical fact a parable. This story is not anything like the story about Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary.

Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
​

"There is no doubt that Christ had the power to perform miracles..." So did he walk on water? Did water turn into wine? Did a crippled man regrow bones and walk? And did Jesus come back to life? Which "miracle" really happened? If they are "parables" and allegorical, then Jesus didn't necessarily perform any miracles. So my problem with the Baha'i interpretation of the NT and the Bible is that they make everything that, isn't "scientifically" possible, symbolic. To me, the writers were writing about some events, maybe based on real historical things, but added in made up miracles. God sending a lightening bolt in the nick of time. An angel warning Lot to get out of town before God sent fire and brimstone. But then his wife looked backed and turned into a pillar of salt. Yes, there is a lesson there... Don't look back. And the lesson we learn from Jesus rising from the dead? He is God-like in his powers. Do what he says or he will send you to hell.

Or, if all this is just fictional stories, then Huh, is God really going to send lightening bolts? No, lightening is part of what happens naturally. It's not God sending them. A woman turned instantaneously into salt? Not possible. It was just a story to scare people into obeyed a wrathful God. Then Jesus rising from the dead? You say it's just a parable? It didn't really happen? Great, who needs to believe in this Jesus guy. The gospel writers just made up a bunch of things about him that aren't even true. Purpose? To get us to follow some rules. And if we don't this all powerful Jesus guy had the power to send us into a pit of fire. That's the "hidden" message. And Baha'is agree, in a way. There is no Satan or hell. The writers made those things up.

 

[loverofhumanity]

There is a difference when the writer is quoting Jesus and saying, "They will be baptized with fire" then saying, like in Daniel, "The person was thrown into a fire and not harmed." Luke is clearly quoting Jesus telling a story. In John, the writer is telling of actual events, supposedly. Call it a lie. Call it fictional. But don't take what is written as historical fact a parable. This story is not anything like the story about Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary.

Luke 16:19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
​

"There is no doubt that Christ had the power to perform miracles..." So did he walk on water? Did water turn into wine? Did a crippled man regrow bones and walk? And did Jesus come back to life? Which "miracle" really happened? If they are "parables" and allegorical, then Jesus didn't necessarily perform any miracles. So my problem with the Baha'i interpretation of the NT and the Bible is that they make everything that, isn't "scientifically" possible, symbolic. To me, the writers were writing about some events, maybe based on real historical things, but added in made up miracles. God sending a lightening bolt in the nick of time. An angel warning Lot to get out of town before God sent fire and brimstone. But then his wife looked backed and turned into a pillar of salt. Yes, there is a lesson there... Don't look back. And the lesson we learn from Jesus rising from the dead? He is God-like in his powers. Do what he says or he will send you to hell.

Or, if all this is just fictional stories, then Huh, is God really going to send lightening bolts? No, lightening is part of what happens naturally. It's not God sending them. A woman turned instantaneously into salt? Not possible. It was just a story to scare people into obeyed a wrathful God. Then Jesus rising from the dead? You say it's just a parable? It didn't really happen? Great, who needs to believe in this Jesus guy. The gospel writers just made up a bunch of things about him that aren't even true. Purpose? To get us to follow some rules. And if we don't this all powerful Jesus guy had the power to send us into a pit of fire. That's the "hidden" message. And Baha'is agree, in a way. There is no Satan or hell. The writers made those things up.

Hi CG.

All the Biblical stories are meant for our spiritual education and training. Some are parables. Some are analogies. Some are written in a symbolical language to test our spiritual aptitude with those who have ‘ears to hear and eyes to see’ receiving the greatest of all bounties when they pass the test in recognising the Manifestation of God. It says in the Bible that narrow is the gate through which the sincere pass.

Matthew 7:14

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:21

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

So to summarise. If we do not learn the spiritual and moral lessons from the Bible, if we dabble into the miraculous and superstitious we will stray far from what God is seeking to teach us and end up following dogmas which are worthless and useless.

And this is why, in modern day society, people have deemed religion as being irrelevant and unneeded as it’s true purpose which is to foster love and harmony among people has been replaced by man made dogmas which have done nothing but create disharmony and division.

As to water. In the Bible water has also been termed as the ‘water of life’ which is a spiritual connotation. That Christ walked on water simply means His Life was always walking the spiritual path.

Christ even said He was the ‘Bread of Life’. All these terms and even stories have deeper meanings and moral relevancies.

John 6:35

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


Here Jesus clearly is not speaking about earthly bread and water. So with so many of these passages in the Bible, it should be easy to comprehend that they are not to be taken at face value.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi CG.

All the Biblical stories are meant for our spiritual education and training. Some are parables. Some are analogies. Some are written in a symbolical language to test our spiritual aptitude with those who have ‘ears to hear and eyes to see’ receiving the greatest of all bounties when they pass the test in recognising the Manifestation of God. It says in the Bible that narrow is the gate through which the sincere pass.

Matthew 7:14

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:21

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

So to summarise. If we do not learn the spiritual and moral lessons from the Bible, if we dabble into the miraculous and superstitious we will stray far from what God is seeking to teach us and end up following dogmas which are worthless and useless.

And this is why, in modern day society, people have deemed religion as being irrelevant and unneeded as it’s true purpose which is to foster love and harmony among people has been replaced by man made dogmas which have done nothing but create disharmony and division.

As to water. In the Bible water has also been termed as the ‘water of life’ which is a spiritual connotation. That Christ walked on water simply means His Life was always walking the spiritual path.

Christ even said He was the ‘Bread of Life’. All these terms and even stories have deeper meanings and moral relevancies.

John 6:35

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


Here Jesus clearly is not speaking about earthly bread and water. So with so many of these passages in the Bible, it should be easy to comprehend that they are not to be taken at face value.

Since we're talking about the intent of the gospel writers while writing about Jesus coming back to life. So was it written in some symbolic language? Was it a parable? Each writer, on his own, made up a very similar story? Or did they all base it on oral traditions that were being circulated about Jesus having been resurrected?

Do you believe any story in the NT is historically accurate? Or is the whole NT nothing but parables and analogies? And, it sounds like Baha'is agree with the Gnostics that the resurrection was spiritual and not a physical resurrection? So the early Church leaders that believe Jesus had risen physically from the dead were wrong?

I'd like to hear your "symbolic" interpretation of Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life. But, if it's anything like your "walk on water" interpretation, it doesn't follow the text very well.

22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.

27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

29 “Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

34 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret. 35 And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought all their sick to him 36 and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.
​

So was there ever a real lake or just a symbolic lake? And the lake was filled with the water of life? And what does the boat symbolize? I'm sure you can come up with some very creative "spiritual" things, but what if it's just a story... a story that the gospel writers tried to push off as true? What was the "great hidden meaning"? Here we have Jesus walking on water. Something that an ordinary human couldn't do... but Jesus did it... And Peter was able to do it too with the help of Jesus. The great meaning to me seems like nothing more that to show Jesus was a special, God-sent being that had special powers, so people better listen and obey him. Then, he finishes it off by, supposedly, rising from the dead... and ascending into the clouds. The great mysterious meaning? He is God-like. His enemies could not kill him. He had supernatural powers. I think that's all the writers were trying to get across. But, if you want to make the whole story some amazing and profound parable go ahead. But I don't think the gospel writers were writing analogies and parables. When they quoted Jesus? That's different. And those stories were obviously being told as parables. Here is, supposedly, Peter talking...

Acts 1:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.​

 

[rational experiences]

Theory.

Gods heavens O stone created the spirit gases that arise out of it's body

Allegory. Spurted gases into womb like male sex does. Holy mother womb conceived change of that gas spirit.

Info. Immaculate. Info. stopped gases being sacrificed. Held immaculate spirit body in womb.

Science stories by religious allegories.

Basic terms.

CH Rist a risen gases.

Gas in science a spirit form.

Moses preaching against occult causes. Nuclear. The occult. Temple pyramid technology.

Technology owned by civilization.

Had sacrificed removed body gas mass before.

Stated gases only returned by saviour not God earth.

Asteroid wandering star stone burning releases gases.

Stated it a man science observation.

Hence said earth God gas spirit removed.

Reason for review. To teach relativity of causes.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Since we're talking about the intent of the gospel writers while writing about Jesus coming back to life. So was it written in some symbolic language? Was it a parable? Each writer, on his own, made up a very similar story? Or did they all base it on oral traditions that were being circulated about Jesus having been resurrected?

Do you believe any story in the NT is historically accurate? Or is the whole NT nothing but parables and analogies? And, it sounds like Baha'is agree with the Gnostics that the resurrection was spiritual and not a physical resurrection? So the early Church leaders that believe Jesus had risen physically from the dead were wrong?

I'd like to hear your "symbolic" interpretation of Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life. But, if it's anything like your "walk on water" interpretation, it doesn't follow the text very well.

22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.

25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.

27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

29 “Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”

31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”

32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

34 When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret. 35 And when the men of that place recognized Jesus, they sent word to all the surrounding country. People brought all their sick to him 36 and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.
​

So was there ever a real lake or just a symbolic lake? And the lake was filled with the water of life? And what does the boat symbolize? I'm sure you can come up with some very creative "spiritual" things, but what if it's just a story... a story that the gospel writers tried to push off as true? What was the "great hidden meaning"? Here we have Jesus walking on water. Something that an ordinary human couldn't do... but Jesus did it... And Peter was able to do it too with the help of Jesus. The great meaning to me seems like nothing more that to show Jesus was a special, God-sent being that had special powers, so people better listen and obey him. Then, he finishes it off by, supposedly, rising from the dead... and ascending into the clouds. The great mysterious meaning? He is God-like. His enemies could not kill him. He had supernatural powers. I think that's all the writers were trying to get across. But, if you want to make the whole story some amazing and profound parable go ahead. But I don't think the gospel writers were writing analogies and parables. When they quoted Jesus? That's different. And those stories were obviously being told as parables. Here is, supposedly, Peter talking...

Acts 1:22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.​

It’s not always necessary to dissect each and every word in looking for a deeper meaning because sometimes we need to see the bigger picture and sometimes by doing that we become too close to the trees to see the forest.

With water, I just gave some other meanings that the Bible refers to when it quotes water. Water is mentioned as belief, as spirit and so on and need not always be referring to material water but can be at times.

With stories like Adam and Eve the lesson is that by not following the ways or laws of God we create our own hell and by the looks of it we have.

During the storm Christ was calm. What kind of storm was it really? What kind of ship was it? Why would a storm cause so much anxiety? What was the reality?

Have you ever heard of the Ship or Ark of the Covenant? That all who remain within are safe and protected from the violent storms of tests lashing those outside sunk in the sea of materialism? What are these storms? They are things like war, suicide, depression, domestic violence, drug and alcohol addiction and so much more. Now if we are within this Ship, that is, following the laws of the Covenant, our lives are protected from many of these problems & spiritual happiness reigns.

So the simple moral of the walking on water episode is to ‘have faith’ and trust in God’s Covenant and enter it and obey it and we will be given inner peace and strength to overcome all storms of tests. Just as faith in God made Christ able to whether the fiercest storm so He told His disciples to have faith also so they too could weather any storm i.e. walk on water.

The only thing an ordinary human finds it almost impossible to do is acquire a saintly and virtuous character. We can do most else. With technology today we have travelled to the moon, sent robots to Mars and can walk on water (you know that guy in London)so we are capable of many ‘miracles’ too.

The real and true miracles of Jesus were that His teachings transformed individuals, societies and entire nations. No other miracle is greater than that.

 

[CG Didymus]

The real and true miracles of Jesus were that His teachings transformed individuals, societies and entire nations. No other miracle is greater than that.

And where do we get the teachings of Jesus? It's the NT?. And the NT has things in it that tell us about the things Jesus did, along with the things he said. How reliable do Baha'is take those things? Well, about the things he did, Baha'is say many of them didn't literally happen. About the things he taught, like things about Satan and hell, Baha'is don't believe are true. So if the story of his life and his teachings changed individuals, a lot of the time it was because people believed them to be literally true. And, I think, that is the case with the resurrection. It is a very powerful belief for a Christian to think that it really happened. And, 2000 years ago, if the people were taught that Jesus "rose" spiritually and not physically, I wonder what the impact would have been?

Today, Baha'is are trying to get people to believe their prophet, Baha'u'llah, is the return of the Christ Spirit and the True Messiah and the promised one of every major religion. To get Christians to believe that Baha'u'llah is the return, Baha'is need to convince people that it is only a spiritual Christ, and not a physical Jesus the Christ, that is returning. But then, what is even the importance of the concept of "resurrection"? Baha'is say the physical body dies and is gone... But the spirit lives on and progresses through different spiritual worlds. If that is so, then resurrection was a false concept... That is not what God had planned. The physical body was never going to come back to life.

Just like the concept of reincarnation. Baha'is say that is not what happens. The spirit never comes back and lives another life in another body. So resurrection and reincarnation, according to the Baha'is, was never what God had in mind. God was always going to make people live, and for a lot of people, suffer through this life, and if they do good, move on to a higher level in some spiritual world.

But the concept of resurrection was developed... and in the NT, it makes it sound like the old body would come back to life, but in a more "glorified" state. To undo those beliefs, Baha'is now have to go back and switch the meaning. All the verses that have people coming back to life have to be changed. And all the verses about Jesus coming back to life and ascending into the sky have to be reinterpreted to mean something else. And, because Baha'is say they believe the Bible and the NT are "God's" Word, and say they believe that Judaism and Christianity are true religions that were revealed by God, they can't simply just say the gospel writers made it all up... There was never a resurrection. That it as a hoax. They have to somehow make it true on a "spiritual" level by saying that the gospel writers meant it to be allegorical, that the resurrection of Jesus was a parable.

Yet, Baha'is here on the forum have said that the body of Jesus was probably stolen and hidden. Which, makes it a hoax doesn't it? If it was just a parable, and not literally true, why would the physical body of Jesus have to be stolen and hidden? So, for me, if it is not true, then it was a made up tradition that got written down as fact. And the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus? Maybe the Romans and the Jews didn't care enough... thinking that the Jesus movement would fade out.

Now there are many "questionable" religious movements that most of us think are false, yet those movements can and do change peoples lives. Like Mormons... do you believe the Angel Moroni spoke with Joseph Smith and told him about the golden plates that told the story of Jesus coming to the Americas? I would doubt that you do. Yet, there might be more Mormons that Baha'is. And they are very committed to their beliefs and good people. But to you and I, their beliefs aren't true. So, for a Baha'i, that is the same way you see most any Christian sect. None of them, to the Baha'is, are teaching the truth about God. Especially the Trinity believing Christians. But most all believe in the devil and hell. Many believe that Jesus rose again. And some even believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. So what are these teachings of Jesus that transformed the world. They are all wrong. So the miracle is what? The gullibility of people? I think yes, in a way. But in another way, I think it shows that people can believe most anything as true, and if they believe it, those beliefs can transform them.

Same with Baha'is, the degree to which a Baha'i takes their faith seriously and tries to apply it, the better they will become... But in some ways, like with all religions, they become locked in to their beliefs as being better and truer than the beliefs of others. And what is really happening here? Baha'is are telling resurrection believing Christians that their beliefs are wrong. That the truth is Jesus' physical body is dead and he is not, himself, the man Jesus, coming back. But that, Baha'u'llah, as the Christ, is the one who has already come back.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And what is really happening here? Baha'is are telling resurrection believing Christians that their beliefs are wrong. That the truth is Jesus' physical body is dead and he is not, himself, the man Jesus, coming back. But that, Baha'u'llah, as the Christ, is the one who has already come back.

What happen is that the Bab and Baha'u'llah gave Messages they say came from God, Messages that fulfilled all past scriptures.

The Baha'i do not have to say anything but to offer just that. All that was offered is in those Messages.

The rest is up to each individual and a vast majority of Bahais have come from all Faiths, they have seen what the Bab and Baha'u'llah offered challenges what we once thought was truth.

Regards Tony