ayed gufran

Please tell me about the death of jesus and what happen after they put them on Cross and where he go after the disapearnce from cross ........
please tell me with help of bible.

Fadl

Ayed,

Do you believe that Ghulam Ahmad is messiah?

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by ayed gufran Please tell me about the death of jesus and what happen after they put them on Cross and where he go after the disapearnce from cross.

The Biblical Crucifixion account is true: He was indeed crucified and His body buried.

The Resurrection story is spiritual metaphor, however (as are all the Biblical post-crucifixion accounts): resurrection isn't a physical--but a spiritual--event!

His Spirit lived on and survives to this day.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

LordOfGoblins

He died on the cross. He was only human.
But God takes the sacrifice and turns it to infuse capacity into mankind.

From Baha'u'llah.
"Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things..."

arthra

As above the Biblical account is true.. Jesus died on the cross.. He was martyred for the Cause of God. The Spirit of Christ however could not be crucified and ascended to God.

His physical remains according to the Gospel of John were entrusted to Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple of Jesus..

His physical remains in my personal opinion were likely secreted and hid from the public as it was feared they would desecrate His body further.. Similar to what haoppened to the body of His Holiness the Bab after His martyrdom.

After three days the Cause of God was revived and the disciples began spreading the Gospel message of their Lord through the earth..this was the spiritual resurrection of the teachings of Jesus.

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 104 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 105 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.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 102

cire perdue

Todd Lawson on Vimeo

This is a very interesting talk on early, 971 AD, Moslem understanding on the crucifixtion which taught that the body of Christ was crucified, but that the Spirit of Christ had not been destroyed. The Moslem scholar the speaker referenced gave these Biblical refences:
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:4
And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

One needs to consider that there are multiple meanings to scripture and though it can be literal, there are usually spiritual meanings to the words. That is what distinguished the sighted from the blind, was the ability to discern the spiritual meaning of scripture.

ayed gufran

well thanx im understanding most of things .......

Iconodule

"His physical remains in my personal opinion were likely secreted and hid from the public as it was feared they would desecrate His body further.. Similar to what haoppened to the body of His Holiness the Bab after His martyrdom."

If you are going to claim this you need to answer these begged questions.

1. By whom was the body stolen.

2. How did they get past the gaurds.

3. How do you explain the post ressurection appearances to the apostles or that the apostles claimed these at least, and believe me a spiritual ressurection or inspiration is not possible as the terminology is quite clear. Jews had clear concepts of the ressurection, it was a physical entity to them thus to use the term ressurection in the new testament makes no sense, they would have said he ascended to God, not ressurected.

arthra

Iconodule quoting my post above:


"His physical remains in my personal opinion were likely secreted and hid from the public as it was feared they would desecrate His body further.. Similar to what haoppened to the body of His Holiness the Bab after His martyrdom."

wrote:

If you are going to claim this you need to answer these begged questions.


1. By whom was the body stolen.

My reply:

The body was not "stolen" .. in my view remember..it was secreted ... by whom? By Joseph of Arimathea who had custody of the body. Did the disciples go to Joseph and ask of the body? There is no record of this. Joseph was a "secret" disciple unknown to the others.

2. How did they get past the gaurds.

My reply:

Only a few versions have guards..but in any case they were not sent out immediately. The remains were easily laid in a secret place during the Sabbath eve and a tomb was designated as the ostensible site was shown the authorities. There is also an exact parallel to the secreting of the Holy Remains of the Bab after His martyrdom... His remains were hidden for forty years by His disciples or so until interred on Mount Carmel.

3. How do you explain the post ressurection appearances to the apostles or that the apostles claimed these at least, and believe me a spiritual ressurection or inspiration is not possible as the terminology is quite clear. Jews had clear concepts of the ressurection, it was a physical entity to them thus to use the term ressurection in the new testament makes no sense, they would have said he ascended to God, not ressurected.

My reply:

When Moses and Elijah "appeared" with the illumined Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.. were they "literally and physically" present? I doubt most Christians today would believe that. Peter however was overcome and was going to build tabernacles for each.. People believed in visions and recounted them later as actual appearances..also remember that Aramaic was the language of the disciples and when translated to Greek a more literal word could have replaced an Aramaic word with a more figurative meaniing..

Jesus Himself said in Luke 23:46 in a loud voice: "Father into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this He breathed His last.

The Quran in a compliment to this verse cited above has

"Allah raised Him up unto Himself..."

Surih 4: verse 158

Iconodule

1. Joseph of Arimathia had already given Christ his tomb, and to say that he would fear grave robbing and then had it secreted away (no mention in the gospels about this or any history for that matter) defies explanation especially when we consider he most likely knew there would be gaurds at the grave, thus no need to fear unless one wants to make the gaurds incompetent. As if trained gaurds at any time in the army are going to shirk their duties so easily. Now you say he was a secret disciple, how do you know all this? How are you coming to the conclusions you have reached historically?

2. Now you still assert it was secreted out and you merely hand wave the gaurds, saying not all versions include them. All versions of what? The gospels? Even if we accept this no gospel says there was no gaurds, thus we can't merely ignore the accounts because there is no actual contradiction only omition, and its not an unlikely scenario that those who had jesus Crucified might fear his body being taken for whatever reason, thus gaurd's are put in place. Hand waving won't solve this problem. So How did Joseph get past this, unless there was a secret cave in there, and while we're at it I would like to enquire where is Christ's body now because if you can demonstrate this and prove Christianity and Christ wrong I will gladly leave Christianity.

3. They were there as clear images, were they physical? Maybe, Christians aren't gnostics we don't reject the material for the spirtual. Were they just apparitions of those departed saints? Maybe but we don't need to know the specificcs. Now your explanation that the apostles felt guilt and that is why they claimed to have seen jesus (why God let them hullicinate is anyone's guess or be mislead as such) but this is simply impossible for the apostles. One has to look at the apostles through their own culture. You claim that it is due to the translation from the aramaic to the greek, yet most of the New testament was originally written in Greek, the exceptions being Hebrews and Mathew, and John was written by an apostle, so there is no excuse for this, as they are quite clear. the language used is very succint and any 1st century jew would understand what the apostles were talking about when they said ressurection and that they saw them. they would not think of a spiritual vision, that is a modern accreation which has infested apologetics. For more read any material relevant on this topic by NT Wright an ANglican scholar but an expert non theless and he has dealt a great deal of time to this opinion.
Im sorry you have not addressed the problems of your historical thesis/conspiracy theory.

cire perdue

I'm impressed with Arthra's theories. We have no way to know that Christ's body was place in the tomb to begin with. One problem with Roman guards is that had they been placed there and then were gone, they would have been derelict and subject to severe discipline.

It's a mere overstatement on Athra's part to call Joseph of Arimathea a secret disciple. It is obvious he was a believer and devoted though.

Christianity and Christ cannot be proved to be wrong, not by Baha'is. Your "threat" is an empty one. Not believing in the bodily resurrection would only mean that an interpretation is incorrect. It would reflect on such things as the sacrement literally turning into the body and blood unseen in the sacristy. These are practices that developed by men. These things have NOTHING to do with the REALITY of Christ and His message. That misconceptions have occurred in 2000 years should not be surprising. Jesus in effect through out thousands of years of kosher practice. I guess there was a bit of upheaval over that.

This remains an issue that is THE individual's responsibility to discern as a matter of faith. I would not like someone to become a Baha'i just because he lost an argument. It is a matter of discovery for most of us, an internal realization that is the highlight of most of our lives.

Iconodule

I have offered no threat only put serious holes in a theory which might even make a zeitgeist believer laugh. Or at worse agree with. Now you suggest the ideas of Christians developed with men, the real presence in the blessed sacrament, Christ as God and the like. I would say that this is dead wrong, and it can be demonstrated through a consistent look into history that the Christian doctrine of Christ and the Eucharist have remained essentially the same. and a mere incorrect interpretation would on part of hte bahai challange their entire belief regarding the realiability of your prophet, thus I think you have to try to defend it and not just admit that it was a physical ressurection (which it was)>.
Now I would not expect one to leave bahai because they lost an argument what I would expect is for them to try and respond and reason out why they lost. Why were my arguments wrong? Thats what I would expect. But I would encourage you, read the earliest fathers and see the consistancy of Christian teaching throughout the years.

cire perdue

Sorry if I sound defensive....
Sacramental belief was very, very diluted by Protestantism. This is all extrapoloation on my part. As I said I sure when kosher was thrown out it was similar..........

LordOfGoblins

I dont think Bahais view a physical vs non-physical as being overly significant. Unlike christians we would never say something like "if Jesus was not literally resurrected then God is false and our faith is false". That is a Christian sentiment not a Bahai one. As said, we adopt a spiritual understanding to what appears to be a literal story. It will be an endless debate if you want to debate whether it was literal or not. Who has the time or inclination when no parties can prove that it was literal when noone was there to see it. You alreay saw the last thread I created on the resurrection which I devoted to you because of your insitance to talk about this topic. I would have hoped that your desire to debate the ressurection would have at least calmed a bit since then. It is truly a waste of time to do for an extanded period when there are a lot of other topics that can be covered so our understandings become enlightened.

arthra

Yeah this "old ground" again..

Recently I read Bishop Spong's position on the resurrection:

The first thing to note is that Matthew changes Mark’s story about the women at the tomb. First, the messenger in Mark becomes a supernatural angel in Matthew’s story. Next Matthew says the women do see Jesus in the garden. They grasp him by the feet and worship him. This is the first time in Christian history that the Resurrection is presented as physical resuscitation. It occurs in the 9th decade of the Christian era. It should be noted that it took more than 50 years to begin to interpret the Easter experience as the resuscitated body of the deceased Jesus. When Matthew presents the story of the risen Jesus to the disciples, it is on a mountaintop in Galilee where he appears out of the sky armed with heavenly power. Recall once again that when Matthew wrote this narrative the story of Jesus’ ascension had not yet entered the tradition.

( » The Resurrection) johnshelbyspong.com

Which I think is closer to our view of the resurrection..

cire perdue

Baha'is don't have to defend their views any more. How very interesting..................
I am jumping up and down for joy.

cire perdue

This may not be the best example, but it reminds me of my friend who cannot apologize or admit any wrong doing. (He had horribly shameless parents, and that causes this) I will say, "I don't like it when you interupt me like that...", and he will say, "Well, I just can't do anything right." The subject is dropped and things go on exactly as they always have with him interupting me. He is unable to single out any flaws, so uses that blanket statement to avoid doing so. He is not able to consider a single flaw, it's too painful.

I don't know what kind of argument that is, but it is the same as saying that if there was no bodily resurrection, then there is no truth to Christianity. What about the change that resulted in the entire Roman Empire????? How about the Message, not the miracle. It's the Message, not the miracle!

I have had a discussion with another Baha'i that men want miracles and magic. They do not want to do the work of faith, faith takes work, it requires thinking. I was told by a very cynical mentor that 5% of the people think, 10% of the people think they think, and the other 85% would rather die than think and it was not original to him. Well, faith takes thought especially in a new Day.

cire perdue

Regarding there not being a bodily resurrection:

The significance of this to me is not that "they" (Chrisitianity)are wrong. It's not. The significance is that there are issues that arise by believing spiritual events literally

that are too contradictory for our day and time. It makes faith too irrational, and intelligent people will spurn faith as a way of life. If truth can set one free, then

the truth is there is more spiritual power in an act of faith that is not about a miracle. Doesn't it take more faith to believe when there is no miracle, than when there is?

Are miracles only supernatural? Or are they of the ordinary of surviving cancer, of premature babies that live, and becoming a more loving person through faith?

I cannot, am unable to, will not attempt to disprove Christianity, I will only want to clarify what men have done to themselves that keep us from knowing and loving God.

Christ is, was, and always will be the Word of God.

Prodaytrader

This sad argument yet again. I'm very impressed with Arthra's explanation. I'll save it for my sister whom in a lot of ways reminds me of the OP. She is Evangelical and one thing I've learned from her over the 40 years of debate is that her types don't think. They regurgitate what's been told to them. I've so moved beyond trying to discern whether Bahu'll'ah was a messenger or not. The teachings, his words, the very ideas he writes about are so beyond anything an ordinary person could come up with. But let's say for arguments sake he wasn't a prophet? What did I lose while I was here? By learning as much as I can from him my life has only ever improved. Not one single time not ever not once did he ask me to kill a goat, stab my land lord, betray my parents...etc. My wife and I agree on this: is it possible we are wrong? Absolutely, anything is possible, but what have we wasted? How can God punish us for following a path we knew in our hearts to be right yet in the end was wrong? We only ever strive to do good and better ourselves to a standard much higher then most Christians I assure you and when we don't, it's because we failed to follow our own principles or morals not because of the Faith. What do we have to loose? Your soul is gonna be your response. Only American 21st century Christians think that way. Believe that Jesus is the Son of God and accept him as your personal Lord and Savior else be cast from Gods favor. I accept Jesus and believe he was the son of God but nowhere does the bible say end of message nothing else to follow...ever.

Belief in Bahu'll'ah goes way beyond the resurrection of Christ. It goes way beyond accepting him as a messanger of God. Being a Bahai is about discovering the truth of what God has given us. It's a journey. Hook luck in your journey, Seeker.

cire perdue

"The Christian Faith was born in the experience that we have come to call Easter. It was this Easter experience that invested Jesus with a sense of ultimacy. It caused his followers to regard his teaching as worthy of being preserved. It was the reason that Saint Paul could write, “if Christ has not been raised then your faith is in vain.” Clearly without Easter there would be no Christianity. That assertion hardly seems debatable. At this point I discover that I am at one with the most literal fundamentalists.

What is debatable, however, is the question of what the experience of Easter really was. Here the distance between the Christianity of biblical scholarship and the Christianity of the fundamentalists opens and begins to widen. Fundamentalists are quite sure of their truth. On Easter the crucified Jesus, who was laid in the grave as a deceased man on Good Friday, was by the mighty act of God, restored to life on Easter. He had thus broken the power of death for all people. If the body of Jesus was not physically restored to life, the fundamentalists claim, then Easter is fraudulent. There can be no compromise here. Those who waver on this foundational truth of Christianity have, according to this perspective, abandoned the essential core of their faith tradition. Well, my only comment on this would be to borrow the words from an old song and say, “It ain’t necessarily so!”

When one reads the New Testament in the order in which these books were written, a fascinating progression is revealed. Paul, for example, writing between the years 50 and 64 or some 20 to 34 years after the earthly life of Jesus came to an end, never describes the resurrection of Jesus as a physical body resuscitated after death. There is no hint in the Pauline corpus that one, who had died, later walked out of his grave clothes, emerged from the tomb and was seen by his disciples.

What Paul does suggest is that Easter meant that God had acted to reverse the verdict that the world had pronounced on Jesus by raising Jesus from death into God. It was, therefore, out of God in a transforming kind of heavenly vision that this Jesus then appeared to certain chosen witnesses. Paul enumerates these witnesses and, in a telling detail, says that this was the same Jesus that Paul himself had seen. No one suggests that Paul ever saw a resuscitated body. The Pauline corpus later says, “If you then have been raised with Christ, seek the things which are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” Please note that the story of the Ascension had not been written when these Pauline words were formed. Paul did not envision the Resurrection as Jesus being restored to life in this world but as Jesus being raised into God. It was not an event in time but a transcendent and transforming truth.

Paul died, according to our best estimates, around the year 64 C.E. The first Gospel was not written until the early 70′s. Paul never had a chance to read the Easter story in any Gospel. The tragedy of later Christian history is that we read Paul through the lens of the Gospels. Thus we have both distorted Paul and also confused theology.

When Mark, the first Gospel, was written the Risen Christ never appears. The last time Jesus is seen comes when his deceased body is taken from the cross and laid in the tomb. Mark’s account of the Resurrection presents us with the narrative of mourning women confronting an empty tomb, meeting a messenger who tells them that Jesus has been raised and asking these women to convey to the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Mark then concludes his Gospel with a picture of these women fleeing in fear, saying nothing to anyone (16:1-8). So abrupt was this ending that people began to write new endings to what they thought was Mark’s incomplete story. Two of those endings are actually reproduced in the King James Version of the Bible as verses 9-20. But thankfully, these later creations have been removed from the text of Mark in recent Bibles and placed into footnotes. The sure fact of New Testament scholarship is that Mark’s Gospel ended without the Risen Christ ever being seen by anyone.

Both Matthew, who wrote between 80-85, and Luke, who wrote between 88-92, had Mark to guide their compositions. Both changed, heightened and expanded Mark. It is fascinating to lift those changes into consciousness and to ask what was it that motivated Matthew and Luke to transform Mark’s narrative. Did they have new sources of information? Had the story grown over the years in the retelling?

The first thing to note is that Matthew changes Mark’s story about the women at the tomb. First, the messenger in Mark becomes a supernatural angel in Matthew’s story. Next Matthew says the women do see Jesus in the garden. They grasp him by the feet and worship him. This is the first time in Christian history that the Resurrection is presented as physical resuscitation. It occurs in the 9th decade of the Christian era. It should be noted that it took more than 50 years to begin to interpret the Easter experience as the resuscitated body of the deceased Jesus. When Matthew presents the story of the risen Jesus to the disciples, it is on a mountaintop in Galilee where he appears out of the sky armed with heavenly power. Recall once again that when Matthew wrote this narrative the story of Jesus’ ascension had not yet entered the tradition.

Luke follows Mark’s story line about the women at the tomb, stating that they do not see Jesus in the garden on Easter morning. Luke, however, has turned Mark’s messenger into two angelic beings. He has also transferred the locale of Easter to Jerusalem specifically denying Mark’s words spoken through the messenger that Jesus will meet them in Galilee. Luke has heightened dramatically the physicality of Jesus’ resuscitated body. In Luke, the resuscitated Jesus walks, talks, eats, teaches and interprets. He also appears and disappears at will. He invites the disciples to handle his flesh. He asserts that he is not a ghost. Finally in order to remove this physically resuscitated Jesus from the earth, Luke develops the story of Jesus’ Ascension.

Even in the Ascension narrative, however, Luke is not consistent. In the last chapter of his Gospel the Ascension takes place on Easter Sunday afternoon. In the first chapter of Acts, which Luke also writes, the Ascension takes place 40 days after Easter. Whereas the messenger in Mark, who becomes an angel in Matthew, directs the disciples to Galilee for a meeting with the risen Christ, Luke specifically denies any Galilean resurrection tradition. He orders the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they are endowed with power from on high. The narrative is clearly growing.

In John, the Fourth Gospel (95-100), the physicality of the Resurrection is even more enhanced. In the 20th chapter of this Gospel Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene in the garden and says to her, “Mary do not cling to me.” One cannot cling to something that is non-physical. Then John suggests that Jesus ascends immediately into heaven before appearing, presumably out of heaven, that night to the disciples, who are missing Thomas. Though Jesus appears able to enter an upper room in which the windows have been closed and the doors locked, he is once again portrayed as being quite physical. This physical quality is further enhanced a week later when Jesus makes a second appearance to the disciples, this time with Thomas present. It is in this narrative that Thomas is invited to touch the nail prints and to examine the place in his side into which the spear had been hurled. All of these appearances take place in Jerusalem.

Chapter 21 of John’s Gospel portrays a Galilean appearance much later in time after the disciples have actually returned to their fishing trade. Here Jesus directs them to a great catch of fish, 153 of them to be specific. Then he eats with them. Finally he restores Peter after his three-fold denial.

The Easter story appears to have grown rather dramatically over the years. Something happened after the crucifixion of Jesus that convinced the disciples that Jesus shared in the eternal life of God and was thus available to them as a living presence. This experience was so profound that the disciples, who at his arrest had fled in fear, were now reconstituted and empowered even to die for the truth of their vision. This experience had the power to force the Jewish disciples to redefine the God of the Jews so that Jesus could be seen as part of who God is. Finally this experience was so profound that it ultimately created, on the first day of the week, a new holy day that was quite different from the Sabbath, to enable Christians to mark this transforming moment with a liturgical act called “the breaking of bread.”

When these biblical data are assembled and examined closely, two things become clear. First something of enormous power gripped the disciples following the crucifixion that transformed their lives. Second, it was some fifty years before that transforming experience was interpreted as the resuscitation of a three days dead Jesus to the life of the world. Our conversation about the meaning of Easter must begin where these two realities meet."

This is an answered prayer. I would have done this work if I could have.....