Trailblazer
Veteran Member
We go by the words of our true Prophet, which is reality.I believe they have no evidence that it is a parable. That makes their view a fantasy or maybe they are going by the words of their non-prophet.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
We go by the words of our true Prophet, which is reality.I believe they have no evidence that it is a parable. That makes their view a fantasy or maybe they are going by the words of their non-prophet.
Actually, that is what I was thinking about your position.Again, you have zero interest about what is actually true and only interest in anything that confirms your beliefs.
What evidence could they have? The gospels say the tomb was empty. There was no dead body. Then Jesus showed himself to be alive and that he had flesh and bone. Now Jesus told parables, and it is clear when he's telling a parable, but when do the gospel writers tell parables of their own? But, of course, the only "proof" and evidence a Baha'i needs is that their religion says it was a spiritual, symbolic resurrection.I believe they have no evidence that it is a parable.
The gospels say the tomb was empty. There was no dead body. Then Jesus showed himself to be alive and that he had flesh and bone.What evidence could they have? The gospels say the tomb was empty. There was no dead body. Then Jesus showed himself to be alive and that he had flesh and bone. Now Jesus told parables, and it is clear when he's telling a parable, but when do the gospel writers tell parables of their own? But, of course, the only "proof" and evidence a Baha'i needs is that their religion says it was a spiritual, symbolic resurrection.
She was saying that this story is not proof that a physical resurrection happened. This was written down years later after the fact. It would have to be proven to Baha'is that a physical resurrection happened for us to move off of how we see it. We consider that what what Abdu'l-Baha said as more conclusive than the story because we came to believe in what Abdu'l-Baha was saying for reasons other than the dispute about this story.Well Baha'is, what is your response? Are you okay with one of your own comparing the New Testament to a Harry Potter novel?
That's what I did. I said the resurrection was a fictional addition to the story of Jesus, a made-up fictional story... like Harry Potter.If Baha'is don't believe the Scriptures of the other religions are true, then make it clear. Don't play games by saying that, out of nowhere, a story like the resurrection is suddenly a symbolic, fictional addition to the story of Jesus. Just call it a hoax, a false belief, a made-up fictional story... like Harry Potter.
They can’t witness the apostles witnessing scenes in which they are not present.Witnesses and those who were there from the beginning witnessed and heard stuff that they did not witness from others who did witness. With some things only Jesus or John, James, Peter and Jesus were there.
No history is witnessed by historians usually.
Also paleo-Hebrew seems to top out around the early monarchy IIRC, so how does scripture get written before they have a system of writing?Almost the same as being made up during the Exile, just a slightly earlier date.
And of course the same connotations are applied.
What the story tells us is interpreted as a big lie and historians make up their own version of what happened and why, and this skeptic speculation becomes the alternative facts.
They were not willing and it’s silly to say they were. They, including Jesus, didn’t exactly run towards their fate.No they weren't running to their enemies and asking to be killed. So?
They can’t witness the apostles witnessing scenes in which they are not present.
Also paleo-Hebrew seems to top out around the early monarchy IIRC, so how does scripture get written before they have a system of writing?
They were not willing and it’s silly to say they were. They, including Jesus, didn’t exactly run towards their fate.
You need a lot more than "could have" since the conclusion that Exodus is a legend at best is not based upon the inability to write.This find seems to show the existence of a system of writing a lot earlier than the early monarchy. Moses could have used it to write scripture.
An Early Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal?
In early 2022, a team announced the discovery of a lead tablet from Mt. Ebal they claim contains the oldest extant Hebrew inscription.www.biblicalarchaeology.org
No Jewish history books tells us any such thing. The Bible is mythology. Some events may have historical kings and the setting is historical. You would not call the Quran or Hindu scriptures "history books", yet Muhammad was a real person, the locations were real.So there is not evidence that it is true even if the Jewish history book tells us about it.
I would not advise believing conspiracy theories and I am am weary of skeptics as well. What one should do is have reasonable beliefs related to an epistemology based on rational beliefs and empirical evidence. Just like a line of rational thinking and evidence suggests the Quran and The Bhagavad Gita are not literal stories the same applies to Jewish mythology.Better to believe skeptics and conspiracy theorists who make up histories about Israel and the Jews I guess, especially when ALL religions write stories that go back to the beginning and Judaism is no different and some people think that Abraham and Moses are literary characters.
Yes it's a gross misunderstanding. The Pentateuch relies on only Mesopotamian and Egyptian myth, not Greek.It's not really a GROSS misunderstanding, it's just a wee error. What is a gross misunderstanding is to think that much of the Bible was made up in the Monarchical and Exilic and post Exilic periods and that the authors drew on things from Persian and other cultures. But that is what happens when you think the supernatural is rubbish and so the OT cannot be true, and when you think that Jesus did not exist and so the gospel was made up, drawing on the religions of other cultures and twisting what is written in the OT.
So denial then? Ok, you are not interested in truth. Just say so then.Thanks for the references but none of it is true. We have been through it before.
You just did. You just hand waved all of it, as a fundamentalist would. But you come off like you are interested in actual discussion. I see that is just a ruse.Yes I guess I do keep ignoring these specific examples. I hope you don't expect me to answer them all individually.
Which is called hand waving. You are free to pick one thing and show which fact isn't consensus in the historicity field. This isn't Dr Carriers work, he's just assembling books and journal research for a presentation.I just have to answer the same sort of stuff in the same way, as if I am programmed to say the same things over and over.
But I don't need to explain why any of it is true and I do say what I think about the evidence in general terms.
Give an example. Jewish scholars deny the Psalms reference to a crucifixion. All historians know the Hellenistic elements come in the NT.As far as I can see the OT was written at the general time that is suggested in the OT and has examples of the sorts of things that you deny exist in them.
That was taken from Mesopotamian myths.As far as I can see only something like the flood story was written before the OT version and that just shows that the story is true.
The Mesopotamian myths are almost 1 thousand years older. That isn't debated.As far as I can see the OT has most things before or as a similar time to when other religions are supposed to have had them iows they could have copied from the Hebrew ideas.
No it's well known. When they occupied Israel it was 600 B.C. and a few centuries later we see Persian influence in the late OT.Even Zoroaster's time of beginning is unknown and probably was after those the Hebrews had it's ideas.
BUT even if various religions had common themes that does not have to mean plagiarising.
Sounds like you are telling yourself a bit of a tall tale.Even if people/demigods died and sort of came back to life in various ways most as so vague that it means nothing in relation to Jesus and the gospel and the ideas certainly existed in the Hebrew writings before the Greeks or Persians turned up on the scene.
BUT all this does come from a view of the OT that is different to your view of it.
It changes during the Persian period. The angels also changed to match the Persian angels. There was no Heaven for people. Show me where after death people went to heaven before the Persian period.You can get into that more deeply, but why do that when I believe the Hebrew scriptures, with reference to angels and heaven and after life etc were there before the Persian period.
No doubt you care about what is true but there are plenty of scholars who disagree with Carrier.
That is wrong right out of the gate. I know you know nothing about Carrier. He doesn't even argue Jesus didn't exist. You don't know his basic premise.To me the idea that Jesus did not exist is ridiculous, and Carrier's work seems to be based on the presumption that Jesus did not exist and wanting to see other things in history that point to that idea.
NO the apocalyptic writing appears after the Persian invasion. The 2nd video has the introduction of souls going to heaven for the first time as part of the theology. It's during the Persian period and they were incorporating most of the Persian apocalyptic ideas that were only in Persian myth and now showing up in late scripture.Apocalypical writing as a style seems to have begun in the Persian period and was used by the Jews in and after the Exile.
Zoroaster seems to have been an example of apocalyptic writing even if the religious ideas he used had been written before him by Jewish prophets and in other Jewish writings.
So you don't care if it's a forgery then, why did you say it wasn't as if you knew?I have not time to go thru the authenticity of Daniel, only to say that various people seem to have had a variety of names and it is easy to mix people up.
Yes that makes sense because you don't seem to even understand the basics about evidence and rational discourse.Actually, that is what I was thinking about your position.