Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus

[Muffled]

Wow ! And there was me, thinking exactly that about some Christians.
Holy Spirit guiding you? How come you haven't clicked on the many oddities about the NT, eh?
You're on slipping surface here, methinks.

I believe I can say "O ye of little faith."

I believe I am on the solid Rock.

I believe there are some who fit that description.

I believe I could not get any closer to Jesus as the Holy Spirit than I am now and I let Him do the writing for me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Madam, Jesus was referring to Himself whenever He used the phrase ‘Son of Man’, not another. He uses the phrase more than He does use the phrase ‘Son of God’, although He does use this phrase as well.

Then why didn't Jesus EVER SAY "you will see me" or "I will return to earth?"
Never did Jesus utter these words, not once in the entire NT.

I predict that just like all Christians you will not have an answer because there is no answer.

Believe whatever you want to believe but bear in mind it is just a belief, not a fact, because facts can be proven, and what you stated can never be proven. I already stated what I believe and I am not going to repeat myself.

Jesus didn’t foretell that another man would come, but the Holy Spirit, Who had descended upon the Apostles at the Pentecost, and is in the hearts of all who truly believe in Christ Jesus as their Lord.

Jesus did foretell that another man would come, the man Jesus promised to send from the Father. Jesus was a Comforter, but the return of the Christ Spirit that would come in another man would be another Comforter:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

That is exactly what Baha’u’llah did, He testified of Jesus. Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 86

Oh no. It’s not symbolic here at all. It’s quite majestic, absolutely, but not symbolic. Literal. Again, refer to the verse in the book of Acts: “...this same Jesus that you saw go up will come back down.”

It is clear that it is He Himself who will return, not another person. He also says, “No man knows the day nor the hour that the Son of Man is to return. Not the angels, nor even the Son Himself, but only the Father.”

Indeed, madam. As I have aforementioned, it is in the New Testament that the very same person will return to Earth, not another in His Name. This is what the Scriptures plainly teach. Also, we know that He Himself will return as it was He who the disciples saw after the Resurrection (in His Body, not merely a ghost or spirit).

No, that is not in the New Testament.

What is clear is that the man who will be the return of Christ will have a new name.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What is also clear is that the same man Jesus will never return to earth.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

These two verses in John 18 completely negate that Jesus is the King of this world or that Jesus will ever come to this world to rule it, and they fit perfectly together with John 17:4 and John 17:11. Jesus came into this world to bear witness unto the truth about God. He did that so there is no more reason for Jesus to come back to this world again. That is why Jesus said “I am no more in the world.”

But of course Christians always have a way out of accepting what Jesus said.

All you have are beliefs, but you have no evidence to back up your beliefs. If you had verses you could present them.

Jesus never promised to return to earth in the same physical body, period. It is just a Christian hope based upon a gross misinterpretation of scripture.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Yes, that is what Christians believe. The same man Jesus who lived 2000 years ago has been living in heaven for 2000 years and the same man Jesus will come floating down from heaven on the clouds and land feet first on the ground.

It's definitely so damn strange.

 

[Trailblazer]

Madam, I find that your interpretation requires much in the way of mental gymnastics regarding Scripture. In the book of Revelation, as you are aware, the subject is Jesus...all the way through.

Only according to your beliefs is the subject Jesus. According to my beliefs the subject is he Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Baha’is believe that the Book of Revelation foretells the coming of Baha’u’llah, the prophet and founder of the Baha’i Faith, and that Baha’u’llah has interpreted the major symbolic imagery of the Book of Revelation in his Book of Certitude, which he revealed in January of 1861.

The Book of Revelation, Chapter 20: A Baha’i Interpretation

The Bab and Baha’u’llah fit the prophetic end-times scenario foreseen and foretold in Revelation 20. These two prophetic-founders of the Baha’i Faith universalized Revelation 20 by equipping and empowering humanity with powerful spiritual, moral and social principles — our “weapons” for subduing “Satan,” once and for all time.

The Prophet the Book of Revelation Promised

In that verse, He speaks of His New Name (that no person will know). The Name that belongs to Him, not another. In the English, it’s simple grammar. If you’re referring to another person, you would not use first person pronouns, but third person, correct?

The Book of Revelation is not Jesus speaking because it was not written by Jesus.

The Book of Revelation was written sometime around 96 CE in Asia Minor. The author was probably a Christian from Ephesus known as "John the Elder." According to the Book, this John was on the island of Patmos, not far from the coast of Asia Minor,
Book Of Revelation | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS

The Spirit is Jesus, who is saying to the churches that he will have a new name.
Why would the same Jesus have a new name?

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

According to my beliefs, the new name was Baha'u'llah who came down from heaven from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's definitely so damn strange.

Everything that "these kinds" of Christians believe is strange to me...
Thank God not all Christians believe the same way.

 

[Sundance]

Then why didn't Jesus EVER SAY "you will see me" or "I will return to earth?"
Never did Jesus utter these words, not once in the entire NT.

I predict that just like all Christians you will not have an answer because there is no answer.

Believe whatever you want to believe but bear in mind it is just a belief, not a fact, because facts can be proven, and what you stated can never be proven. I already stated what I believe and I am not going to repeat myself.

Jesus did foretell that another man would come, the man Jesus promised to send from the Father. Jesus was a Comforter, but the return of the Christ Spirit that would come in another man would be another Comforter:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

That is exactly what Baha’u’llah did, He testified of Jesus. Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 86

He does say that we will see Him. Every single reference to the Son of Man is a reference ONLY to Himself, never another. Even your prophet refers to Jesus as the Son of Man!

Again, the Comforter is the Holy Spirit, not another person.

(See the book of The Acts of The Apostles chapters 1 and 2.)

After the Resurrection, the Disciples ask Jesus when we restore the Kingdom of God to Israel, to which He replies, “It is not for you to know that time...” Then, He told them, “John baptized with water, but in a few days, you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Then in verse 8 of chapter 1, He says,

“but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

Then, He had ascended.


In chapter 2, we find the believers praying. Then, the Holy Spirit – the Comforter Who was promised – had come upon each of them in the form of a tongue of fire – and they then began to speak in other languages as the Holy Spirit gave them the ability.

Later, in the same chapter verses 22 through 24, the Apostle Peter spoke concerning Jesus,

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24“But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.”

I think it’s clear what the Apostle Peter is saying here, and what he means by it.

Bahá’u’lláh did not teach of the Bodily Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, as is clearly taught in the New Testament. You cannot reconcile those things which contradict one another.

Please don’t deceive yourself.

(By the way, at least my beliefs are sound and accord with Scripture, and I don’t have to do any mental gymnastics to justify them, as you do.)

No, that is not in the New Testament.

What is clear is that the man who will be the return of Christ will have a new name.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What is also clear is that the same man Jesus will never return to earth.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

These two verses in John 18 completely negate that Jesus is the King of this world or that Jesus will ever come to this world to rule it, and they fit perfectly together with John 17:4 and John 17:11. Jesus came into this world to bear witness unto the truth about God. He did that so there is no more reason for Jesus to come back to this world again. That is why Jesus said “I am no more in the world.”

But of course Christians always have a way out of accepting what Jesus said.

All you have are beliefs, but you have no evidence to back up your beliefs. If you had verses you could present them.

Jesus never promised to return to earth in the same physical body, period. It is just a Christian hope based upon a gross misinterpretation of scripture.

Oh no, my dear, He will return in His Body to bring forth the new Jerusalem. We know that it is He Himself who will return, as the vision in the book of Revelation clearly foretells:

“Every eye will see Him [Jesus], coming in the clouds, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes will mourn over Him.”

Was Bahá’u’lláh pierced? No. He died in exile, not being crucified.

Later, in Revelation 5, John of Patmos asks,

“Who is worthy to break the book and open the seven seals?”

One of the 24 elders replies,

“The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, The Root of David”

This speaks of The Jewish Messiah; the answer would imply that the person was Jewish. Answer me plainly. Was Bahá’u’lláh Jewish?


It goes on to extol the Lamb of God,

“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

Again, answer me plainly, please. Is Bahá’u’lláh called the Lamb of God?




Jesus Himself promises us (to paraphrase 1 Thessalonians 5 and Matthew 24:43):

“The Son of Man (He Himself) will come like a thief in the night.”

In the reference to this in the book of Matthew, Jesus speaks thusly,

“As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be when the Son of Man comes. Two men will be in the field: one taken, the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill: one will be taken, the other left. Be always prepared! For He will come at an hour that you do not know.”


It is not given to any person to know when Christ is to return, but we are assured that He will...Himself.


In light of this, He warns us,

“Many will come saying, ‘Christ is here!’ or ‘I am the Christ.’ Do not believe them.”

It is clear to me that you, as a Bahá’í, have difficulties accepting the full truth of Scripture, choosing to believe only that which suit your own desires. It’s honestly kind of sad. I guess Hindus and Buddhists are not the only individuals who have taken this issue with you.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe there are a few innocuous additions that are not falsehoods but simply attributed to where they don't belong but are found elsewhere in the NT.

I believe you must be referring to translations or poor copying neither of which has an ulterior motive.

I believe there are none other than those perpetrated to protect the innocent or reported as coming from an ungodly source.

You believe what you believe....... OK.

As an example......... I believe that the gospel of John has some true accounts of facts, but the apostle was not the disciple, had no clue about what happened or when, discarded what he thought were menial healings, grossly exaggerated tales of miracles, had no clue about what Jesus was doing, or why, or when........ but worst of all he turned Jesus's mission from a campaign against Temple and priesthood corruption in to a disgusting rant against 'The Jews' who in fact he was struggling on behalf of..

The synoptics do not mention any conflicts, contentions, confrontations with 'The Jews' at all, G-John does nothing else and there are 30+ mentions of 'The Jews' plotting, contending, confronting with him. A lie, imo.

How does that fit with your ideas?

 

[oldbadger]

I believe I can say "O ye of little faith."

Is that how you talk in everyday life, or just when you click in to your 'believer' mode?

I believe I am on the solid Rock.

I believe there are some who fit that description.

I believe I could not get any closer to Jesus as the Holy Spirit than I am now and I let Him do the writing for me.

Unfortunately that doesn't actually help you with this discussion/debate.
Lots of people have told me (over years) how spiritual or faithful they are..... but I only have perceived people who clicked from their God to Mammon as and when it suited them.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is clear to me that you, as a Bahá’í, have difficulties accepting the full truth of Scripture, choosing to believe only that which suit your own desires. It’s honestly kind of sad. I guess Hindus and Buddhists are not the only individuals who have taken this issue with you.

It is clear to me that you, as a Christian, are completely incapable of accepting the truth of Scripture, choosing to believe only that which suit your own desires. It’s honestly kind of sad because you will be waiting for Jesus till hell freezes over.

It does not matter if the whole world takes issue with the Baha'is. If Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, He was, and there is nothing you can do about it since it was ordained by God.

 

[Sundance]

It is clear to me that you, as a Christian, are completely incapable of accepting the truth of Scripture, choosing to believe only that which suit your own desires. It’s honestly kind of sad because you will be waiting for Jesus till hell freezes over.

It does not matter if the whole world takes issue with the Baha'is. If Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ, He was, and there is nothing you can do about it since it was ordained by God.

Madam, again, I plead with you: rid yourself of your deception. The New Testament is blunt:

“If any man or even an angel from Heaven comes to you and preaches a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be accursed!”


Your teachers, in denying the Bodily Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, make the Christian Gospel (even the very Promise of The Lord Himself) null and void. These two are, indeed, incompatible.

Christ Himself foretells His Crucifixion and Bodily Resurrection. There is no other interpretation, I tell you the truth.

As I state in my OP, and reiterate to you now, it’s fine whatever you believe about Jesus, just don’t twist His Words in the New Testament, trying to connect your conception to the Gospel. Regarding who He is and what He will do, He’s crystal clear: Son of Man, Son of God, Jewish Messiah, Saviour of the World, Crucified and Risen Lord. Even if the whole world came against His Message, I will choose to believe Him. Your choice is your own, madam.

You can accept His Message, reject it, ignore it...you can believe whatever you will, just don’t deliberately twist the New Testament.

 

[Trailblazer]

Madam, again, I plead with you: rid yourself of your deception. The New Testament is blunt:

“If any man or even an angel from Heaven comes to you and preaches a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be accursed!”

I know those verses well:

Galatians 1:8-9 King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Those verses refer to another person preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I agree let him be accursed.

The Revelation is Baha'u'llah is not "another gospel." There is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Baha'u'llah brought a new Revelation from God, just like Muhammad brought a new Revelation from God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Christ Himself foretells His Crucifixion and Bodily Resurrection. There is no other interpretation, I tell you the truth.

Oh yes, there are other interpretations of the resurrection stories, and they are made by Christians, not by Baha'is.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. 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 -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. 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. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. 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, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. 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.

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. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

Baha'is have no dog in this fight because we know who Baha'u'llah was, so we know what Resurrection really means.

The Great Resurrection

 

[Sundance]

I know those verses well:

Galatians 1:8-9 King James Version (KJV)

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Those verses refer to another person preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I agree let him be accursed.

The Revelation is Baha'u'llah is not "another gospel." There is only one Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Baha'u'llah brought a new Revelation from God, just like Muhammad brought a new Revelation from God.

A new revelation from God from a person who boldly proclaimed himself to be the fulfillment of the prophecies of every major religion, some of which contradict each other irreconcilably? Including Christ Returned in His Body?


Ha! Surely, you’re pulling my leg, madam.

As to the person who claims he is Christ, from the jump, we know that He is a liar. For we do not know when Christ is to return. We do know – as Christ our Lord tells us – that it is He Himself, not another person, who will return. Obviously, a different person would mean that it’s not the Man who walked through Galilee 2,000 years ago.


Additionally, the Gospel is clear: Christ was crucified and brought back from the dead. This is what the Gospel is. This is what Christianity has taught from its inception. If it’s not this, in its entirety, it’s essentially incompatible with the Christian faith.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

A new revelation from God from a person who boldly proclaimed himself to be the fulfillment of the prophecies of every major religion, some of which contradict each other irreconcilably? Including Christ Returned in His Body?


Ha! Surely, you’re pulling my leg, madam.

As to the person who claims he is Christ, from the jump, we know that He is a liar. For we do not know when Christ is to return. We do know – as Christ our Lord tells us – that it is He Himself, not another person, who will return. Obviously, a different person would mean that it’s not the Man who walked through Galilee 2,000 years ago.


Additionally, the Gospel is clear: Christ was crucified and brought back from the dead. This is what the Gospel is. This is what Christianity has taught from its inception. If it’s not this, in its entirety, it’s essentially incompatible with the Christian faith.

What makes you take these things literally?

 

[Sundance]

Oh yes, there are other interpretations of the resurrection stories, and they are made by Christians, not by Baha'is.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. 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 -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. 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. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. 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, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. 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.

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. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

Baha'is have no dog in this fight because we know who Baha'u'llah was, so we know what Resurrection really means.

The Great Resurrection

Ahhh I see. From what it would appear to me, though, it seems as though the understanding of Liberal Christians are rooted not in what the New Testament itself teaches, but rather the conjectures of science, which question the notion that there is life after death at all.

As to the Apostle Paul, he had been a Pharisee (Pharisees taught of a bodily resurrection), so it wouldn’t make much sense to deny that he taught the Bodily Resurrection of Christ.

 

[Sundance]

What makes you take these things literally?

As to the Book of Revelation, I don’t necessarily read it literally, as it is described as a vision with a historical context, so I read it thusly.

As to the Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Lord, they are described as being bodily, so I read it thusly.

As to the New Testament in general, I read it and try to investigate its historical, theological, and cultural contexts, as that is how it was written.

 

[Trailblazer]

A new revelation from God from a person who boldly proclaimed himself to be the fulfillment of the prophecies of every major religion, some of which contradict each other irreconcilably?

Nope, the prophecies for the Promised One of all ages who was the Messiah are eerily similar in all the world's religions and all those prophecies a[-have either been fulfilled or they will be fulfilled during the Messianiac Age we are now living in.

Including Christ Returned in His Body?

Physical Bodies do not live in the spiritual world aka heaven, so they cannot return from heaven on the clouds.

As to the person who claims he is Christ, from the jump, we know that He is a liar. For we do not know when Christ is to return. We do know – as Christ our Lord tells us – that it is He Himself, not another person, who will return. Obviously, a different person would mean that it’s not the Man who walked through Galilee 2,000 years ago.

Too bad you do not have one single verse wherein Jesus promised to return to earth, only these verses that you conveniently ignore:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Additionally, the Gospel is clear: Christ was crucified and brought back from the dead. This is what the Gospel is. This is what Christianity has taught from its inception. If it’s not this, in its entirety, it’s essentially incompatible with the Christian faith.

What Christianity has taught from its inception is incompatible with what Jesus taught.

"Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.

Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other hand these spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.) Matt ix 30.

Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.”

Christ and Baha'u'llah, The False Prophets, pp. 25-30

 

[Trailblazer]

Ahhh I see. From what it would appear to me, though, it seems as though the understanding of Liberal Christians are rooted not in what the New Testament itself teaches, but rather the conjectures of science, which question the notion that there is life after death at all.

As usual, Christians disagree with other Christians, saying they are wrong because they do not agree with me.

What reason do you have to believe liberal Christians don't believe in a life after death?

As to the Apostle Paul, he had been a Pharisee (Pharisees taught of a bodily resurrection), so it wouldn’t make much sense to deny that he taught the Bodily Resurrection of Christ.

Whatever Paul taught, it was not what Jesus taught:

Below are some excerpts from How Paul changed the course of Christianity which I posted in October 2018.

That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

Measured by the standard of Baha’u’llah revelation, the Pauline doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Original Sin, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the sacramentalisation of the Christian religion, the whole Church plan of salvation — which not only contradicts the Jewish understanding of God (255) but was also strongly repudiated by the revelation of God which succeeded Christianity (256) — these are a deformation of Jesus’s teaching. Some critical theological scholars have confirmed that these deformations in Christianity started very early, in fact with Paul, and that the arch-apostle, without whom Marcion would not have been possible, was the arch-heretic in Christianity—as Tertullian very rightly saw. (257) Years ago, when I became acquainted with the founder of the Christian religion in the faith of the original community through H. J. Schoep’s Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, (258) the standard work on the subject, I was deeply impressed. Here Jesus was not the only-begotten Son of God come down from Heaven, crucified and resurrected, nor the unique Saviour, but the messenger of God to whom the Quran testifies and who is glorified by Baha’u’llah. (259)

(Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ)

 

[Sundance]

Nope, the prophecies for the Promised One of all ages who was the Messiah are eerily similar in all the world's religions and all those prophecies a[-have either been fulfilled or they will be fulfilled during the Messianiac Age we are now living in.

Physical Bodies do not live in the spiritual world aka heaven, so they cannot return from heaven on the clouds.

Too bad you do not have one single verse wherein Jesus promised to return to earth, only these verses that you conveniently ignore:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

What Christianity has taught from its inception is incompatible with what Jesus taught.

"Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.

Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other hand these spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.) Matt ix 30.

Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.”

Christ and Baha'u'llah, The False Prophets, pp. 25-30

Honestly, I believe that your interpretation of Scripture is convoluted enough to be facetious.

Physical bodies do not go up to Heaven. Scientifically speaking, this is true. However, scientifically speaking, there is no evidence for the existence of anything relating to the supernatural in general. Yet, I digress.

Scripture is clear: Jesus was resurrected bodily. Not in the Spirit, as there is no such thing as a resurrection of spirit, for spirit cannot die. Flesh does.

You are correct in Jesus’s Mission being to give humanity eternal life. How is this done? Again, Scripture speaks plainly: unless you accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for your sins and His subsequent Resurrection, you will find no eternal life. His Word is explicit here.

We’re not speaking about later traditions, we’re speaking about Christ’s Fundamental Message: The Gospel of salvation for all who believe.

 

[Sundance]

@Trailblazer

There were always certain individuals within Church history who sought to divert people’s hearts and minds. These people were called heretics. Over time, these people had passed on, their heresies dying with them, but the truth of the Christian Faith had moved on. So, I give heresies no regard.


As to the Apostle Paul, he was not even the first to see the Resurrected Lord, and the Message he taught, he got from the Apostles of the Lord Jesus. He even states this in his first book to the Corinthians chapter 15:

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-7.htm
7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;

8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-9.htm
9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-11.htm
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-15.htm
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-17.htm
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-18.htm
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”