[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[GrandizerII]

Not a clear answer.

Were the resurrection accounts in the Gospels meant to be taken literally? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Or is it all purely symbolic?

Yes, the resurrection is to be understand as Jesus literally conquering death, by resurrecting in very real and concrete way, in a bodily resurrection. Not just as a symbol of hope, but the very embodiment of it, in the flesh.

It why one the gospels has a doubting Thomas, feeling the wounds of the resurrected Christ.

Great, so however the stories came to be accepted as true could have been similar, process-wise, to how the stories in Genesis were accepted as true. People saw and interpreted things in certain ways, and stories meant to be taken as true arose whereby people listened and accepted as true.

Sidenote: hopefully you realize this is all a matter of faith anyway and not historically validated that Jesus rose from the dead.

---

Not a clear answer.

Were the resurrection accounts in the Gospels meant to be taken literally? Did Jesus literally rise from the dead? Or is it all purely symbolic?

Yes, the resurrection is to be understand as Jesus literally conquering death, by resurrecting in very real and concrete way, in a bodily resurrection. Not just as a symbol of hope, but the very embodiment of it, in the flesh.

It why one the gospels has a doubting Thomas, feeling the wounds of the resurrected Christ.

---

Says who? Acrobat?

Says your own account,duh. There’s nothing to be read in it to derive any sort of hope of faith/trust in God in.

All your account did would have shown that God could make really impressive rock, that served no actual function or purpose.

That just means you didn't appreciate what those people appreciated. You can't speak for hypothetical people in a hypothetical scenario that I made up myself. Lol ...