Christianity vs Baha'i

[metis]

Some biblical manuscripts still exist.

There are no originals, and if you doubt that, maybe look it up.


Here, I just did with one source [see item 2]: Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Good for you to stop by. The virus isn't too bad where I'm at. How about in New Zealand? Still under control? The Edict to rebuild Jerusalem is the one I'm talking about. But thanks anyway.

Good to hear your region isn’t badly affected. We have zero community cases at the moment and life is pretty much normal other than our borders being shut to overseas visitors and anyone coming into NZ needs to spend two weeks in managed isolation.

I must have misread your message so sorry about that. The Prophecies in the Christian Bible are interesting as they relate to so much history. There were several Edicts to rebuild Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Ezra as you probably know, and it is the third decree dated around 457 BC that is used in regards the Daniel 9:24-27 Prophecy that’s used by some Christians and Baha’is to calculate Christ’s Ministry and also 1844.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mentioned Jesus and prophethood.

Sorry, I'm lost.

 

[Skywalker]

Sorry, I'm lost.

Jesus was prophet, priest, and king but he wasn't a prophet prophet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus was prophet, priest, and king but he wasn't a prophet prophet.

Please explain what you mean by that.

 

[Skywalker]

Please explain what you mean by that.

Its like people who say that their spouse is their best friend. They are like a friend but they aren't a friend friend. Jesus functioned as a prophet of God but that isn't first and foremost who he was.

 

[Trailblazer]

Its like people who say that their spouse is their best friend. They are like a friend but they aren't a friend friend. Jesus functioned as a prophet of God but that isn't first and foremost who he was.

Then who do you think Jesus was, first and foremost?

 

[Skywalker]

Then who do you think Jesus was, first and foremost?

An advocate, redeemer, and Mediator.

 

[Skywalker]

There are no originals, and if you doubt that, maybe look it up.


Here, I just did with one source [see item 2]: Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia.

There doesn't need to be exact manuscripts for the Bible to be true. Has the Bible Been Diluted by Copies of Copies of Copies? Christian Apologist Lee Strobel Answers

How can anyone have confidence in the Bible's New Testament when it's based on copies of copies of copies? Former legal journalist Lee Strobel shared this common concern when he was an atheist investigating the Bible and hoping that the evidence for the veracity of the Bible would not add up.

During a recent interview with The Christian Post, Christian apologist Lee Strobel shared that he had been an atheist since his teens, and after he married his wife, Leslie, her subsequent conversion to Christianity prompted him to verify claims in the Bible, as well as the authenticity of the ancient copies from which it came. So he consulted a leading theologian to learn about the empirical evidence used to authenticate ancient replicas of the New Testament.

The result is his newly revised book, The Case for Christ, in which Strobel questions New Testament expert Dr. Bruce Metzger about the authenticity of the Gospels.
"I'll be honest with you," says Strobel. "When I first found out that there are no surviving originals of the New Testament, I was really skeptical. I thought, 'If all we have are copies of copies of copies, how can I have any confidence that the New Testament we have today bears any resemblance whatsoever to what was originally written?'"

Copies of Copies of Copies

In the book, Dr. Metzger explains to Strobel that his question isn't one that's exlusive to the Bible. All ancient texts bear the same burden of proof. " ... It's a question we can ask of other documents that have come down to us from antiquity."

But having multiple copies of an ancient text can be a good thing. The theologian explains that the New Testament has an "unprecedented multiplicity of copies that have survived. The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like."

How Age Authenticates New Testament Documents

Age is more than just a number when it comes to ancient items. It's another way to prove authenticity. Strobel probes Dr. Metzger about the age of New Testament documents.

"What about the age of the documents," he asks. "Certaintly that's important as well, isn't it?"

The expert explains that the age of New Testament documents is another aspect that works in its favor, saying that there are copies that date back to only a couple of generations from the writing of the originals. This isn't the case, however, for other ancient texts where five to 10 centuries passed between the writing of the original and the earliest surviving copy.

Metzger says that there is also more evidence that confirms the age and content of the Gospels: Greek manuscripts. "In addition to Greek manuscripts, we also have translations of the gospels into other languages at a relatively early time — into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic," he says in the book.

He adds that there are secondary translations as well, including Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, and Ethiopic that were all made somewhat later. Metzger says that even if they lacked Greek manuscripts today, information from the other translations could be pieced together and enable them to reproduce the contents of the New Testament.

The theologian goes a step further saying, "Even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers."

That said, Strobel accepts the veracity of the ancient New Testament in that the words of the fathers of the early church established a creed for the Christian faith.

Strobel tells The Chrisian Post, "We have preserved for us a creed of the earliest church in 1 Corinthians 15:3. This creed summarizes the essence of Christianity — that Jesus died for our sins, He was buried, He rose again, and then it mentions specific names of eyewitnesses and groups to whom He appeared."

"This creed of the earliest church has been dated back by scholars to within months of the death of Jesus. One of the great scholars in this area, James G. D. Dunn, said that this creed — we can be entirely confident — was formulated within months of Jesus' death."

He adds, "So this idea that Jesus died for our sins, that He rose from the dead, and thus proved that He is the son of God was not a legend that developed many years later, but it goes right back virtually to the scene of His death, and I think that is historical gold. That's like a news flash from ancient history that's extremely persuasive because it is unlikely to have been tainted by legend."

 

[CG Didymus]

The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris

If true then gospels are not true, but myth.

Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body

So those things didn't happen?

It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body,

So the gospel writers made it up?

Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

Ah, legends... not real events.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events.

And how do liberal Christians interpret them? It sounds like they should not consider any of these stories as being real and from God, but rather from man. And, if that's so, I have no problem with it. But, is that what Baha'u'llah says about the NT and the rest of the Bible?

 

[CG Didymus]

That could be interpreted to mean any number of things.

What is actually said about a first and second resurrection in Revelation? Then, how do Baha'is interpret it?

 

[Skywalker]

What is actually said about a first and second resurrection in Revelation? Then, how do Baha'is interpret it?

The second ressurection is the ressurection of the dead at the great white throne judgement.

 

[CG Didymus]

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Paul says nothing about the physical body of Jesus being raised from the grave.
"him" is not a physical body, it is His spirit.

And who isn't "raised" in spirit from the dead? What would be the great miracle in that?

 

[Skywalker]

And who isn't "raised" in spirit from the dead? What would be the great miracle in that?

That verse sounds it's talking about Jesus being raised in body and spirit.

 

[CG Didymus]

The spirit of Jesus did not die.
Want to start over?

So the body of Jesus died but did not come back to life, or resurrect. The soul and spirit did not die but were resurrected? Why would they need to be resurrected if they weren't dead?

 

[Skywalker]

So the body of Jesus died but did not come back to life, or resurrect. The soul and spirit did not die but were resurrected? Why would they need to be resurrected if they weren't dead?

The body, soul, and spirit is an analogy for why I believe that the Trinity makes sense.

 

[CG Didymus]

The second ressurection is the ressurection of the dead at the great white throne judgement.

It was for her. After she quoted what was said in Revelation about the first and second resurrection, I wanted to hear how she interpreted it. I'll keep reading to she what she says.

 

[CG Didymus]

Good to hear your region isn’t badly affected. We have zero community cases at the moment and life is pretty much normal other than our borders being shut to overseas visitors and anyone coming into NZ needs to spend two weeks in managed isolation.

I must have misread your message so sorry about that. The Prophecies in the Christian Bible are interesting as they relate to so much history. There were several Edicts to rebuild Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Ezra as you probably know, and it is the third decree dated around 457 BC that is used in regards the Daniel 9:24-27 Prophecy that’s used by some Christians and Baha’is to calculate Christ’s Ministry and also 1844.

The question is about using 457BC as the starting point for the 2300 evenings and mornings. I think it should be when all that stuff about the sacrifice being stopped and that thing about the abomination. The context has the Ram and the Goat in there and then says who these animals represent. So what I've heard is that Antiochus Epiphanes is the one that desecrated the temple... if so, then when did that happen and when was the Temple cleansed. Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

That verse sounds it's talking about Jesus being raised in body and spirit.

If Jesus wasn't raised bodily, Christianity has a lot of explaining to do. If God meant for those verses to be taken symbolically and not literally, God has a lot of explaining to do.

 

[Skywalker]

If Jesus wasn't raised bodily, Christianity has a lot of explaining to do. If God meant for those verses to be taken symbolically and not literally, God has a lot of explaining to do.

Why would the ressurection of Jesus be symbolic if there were eyewitnesses?