Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus

[Sundance]

What Does the Bible Say About Jesus Return?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

There is a need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for your sins but there is absolutely no need to accept the Resurrection to gain eternal life. I cannot even find a Christian website that says that. You have been duped.

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

1 John 5:13 “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.”

 

[Sundance]

There is a need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for your sins but there is absolutely no need to accept the Resurrection to gain eternal life. I cannot even find a Christian website that says that. You have been duped.

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

1 John 5:13 “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.”

The Crucifixion and Resurrection are tied together inherently. Every Christian knows this, and will boast on this. “Jesus is alive! He has risen from the dead, just as He said!”, they will say boldly.


And THIS is the Gospel!

Actually, there are many, many, many Christian websites which deal with the centrality of the Resurrection of Jesus. You must have one eye shut.

You say the Resurrection in the Bible was merely one of spirit. Oh, how the Scriptures and Church history prove you to be a liar, madam. You can check out any Bible translation, ask the vast majority of Christians from any denomination, go to any local church you want. They will tell you what their Scriptures say regarding this topic, and there will be no deviation between them: Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected IN HIS BODY.

Don’t be a doubting Thomas. That is, if you’re going off of what the New Testament says and makes abundantly clear.

 

[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.

Those Christians holding an opinion that was at odds with what is generally accepted by Christianity were the real Christians who followed the teachings of Jesus rather than Paul. So the falsehood of the Christian Faith had moved on after Paul changed the course of Christianity.

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.

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

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

 

[Trailblazer]

The Crucifixion and Resurrection are tied together inherently. Every Christian knows this, and will boast on this. “Jesus is alive! He has risen from the dead, just as He said!”, they will say boldly.

No, every Christian does not know this, only Christians who believe like you do believe this.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Jesus is alive, but He is not alive in a physical body. Jesus is alive in a spiritual body, just like everyone else in heaven will be, except that Jesus is at the Right Hand of God.

“The answer to the third question is this, that in the other world the human reality doth not assume a physical form, rather doth it take on a heavenly form, made up of elements of that heavenly realm.” Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, p. 194

“The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother. When the soul attaineth the Presence of God, it will assume the form that best befitteth its immortality and is worthy of its celestial habitation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 157

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

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

Ace! Bullseye! With that

 

[Sundance]

Those Christians holding an opinion that was at odds with what is generally accepted.by Christianity were the real Christians who followed the teachings of Jesus rather than Paul. So the falsehood of the Christian Faith had moved on after Paul changed the course of Christianity.

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.

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

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

How did I know you were going to bring up Ebionites? Let’s re-establish this. Native-born Jews made up Jesus’s first believers, that is true.

Some believers held to a belief that Jesus was a human prophet. (Even Scripture attests to the fact that some people saw Jesus as being merely a prophet.)

The Apostles, however, had acknowledged and taught Jesus as the Son of God, crucified and bodily resurrected.

So, there were two kinds of Christologies here. The high one – the Apostles’ Christology – had become the orthodox position. I mean, to whom do you think ‘The Apostles’ refer in the creed of the same name?


As to Paul’s teachings, in the early church, there were also plenty of non-Jewish believers who came from (obviously) pagan backgrounds. Some of these were people who converted to Judaism first, others were ‘God-Fearers’ (Pagans who had become attracted to Judaism, observing things like dietary laws, feast days, other such things, but stopping short of full conversion which would require circumcision for males at least), others had no knowledge of Judaism at all.


The early Christians, again being Jews, had held differing opinions regarding what to do with these Gentiles. Certain of them were convinced that Gentiles ought to convert fully to Judaism. Meanwhile, The Apostle Paul had argued that this wasn’t necessary. In the Book of Acts, it is recorded that Paul’s argument had won out. Thus came the Apostolic Decree.

Sooooo fundamentally, your rebuttal is flawed.


EDIT: The Ebionites, actually, had no link to James the Just, nor were they the first Christians. These would have been called quite simply ‘Jewish Christians’ (Basically, Judaism + Jesus as the Messiah). Today, these people are called ‘Messianic Jews’. Meanwhile, Ebionites exist only as a historical group, perhaps with an internet presence.

 

[Sundance]

No, every Christian does not know this, only Christians who believe like you do believe this.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

That certain Christians doubt the Resurrection, that is true. The Apostle Paul even spoke directly to this.

That the Bible and the vast majority of Christians throughout history testify to the Bodily Resurrection of Christ Jesus is plain and evident.

If you want to deny the Gospel, you are free to do so, but to twist it, is utterly shameful.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Today, these people are called ‘Messianic Jews’.

No resemblance. The "Messiahic Judaism" movement which started in the 1960s is just Evangelical Protestant Christianity playing dressup. There is nothing Jewish about it, nor is there anything "Early-Christian" about it either. It's wholly Evangelical inside and out.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

How did I know you were going to bring up Ebionites? Let’s re-establish this. Native-born Jews made up Jesus’s first believers, that is true.

Some believers held to a belief that Jesus was a human prophet. (Even Scripture attests to the fact that some people saw Jesus as being merely a prophet.)

The Apostles, however, had acknowledged and taught Jesus as the Son of God, crucified and bodily resurrected.

So, there were two kinds of Christologies here. The high one – the Apostles’ Christology – had become the orthodox position. I mean, to whom do you think ‘The Apostles’ refer in the creed of the same name?


As to Paul’s teachings, in the early church, there were also plenty of non-Jewish believers who came from (obviously) pagan backgrounds. Some of these were people who converted to Judaism first, others were ‘God-Fearers’ (Pagans who had become attracted to Judaism, observing things like dietary laws, feast days, other such things, but stopping short of full conversion which would require circumcision for males at least), others had no knowledge of Judaism at all.


The early Christians, again being Jews, had held differing opinions regarding what to do with these Gentiles. Certain of them were convinced that Gentiles ought to convert fully to Judaism. Meanwhile, The Apostle Paul had argued that this wasn’t necessary. In the Book of Acts, it is recorded that Paul’s argument had won out. Thus came the Apostolic Decree.

Sooooo fundamentally, your rebuttal is flawed.


EDIT: The Ebionites, actually, had no link to James the Just, nor were they the first Christians. These would have been called quite simply ‘Jewish Christians’ (Basically, Judaism + Jesus as the Messiah). Today, these people are called ‘Messianic Jews’. Meanwhile, Ebionites exist only as a historical group, perhaps with an internet presence.

I really get the sense from what you say that you have not actually studied the Ebionites.

 

[Sundance]

I really get the sense from what you say that you have not actually studied the Ebionites.

I know a bit about who they were and what they taught. Admittedly, I’m not too educated about them.

 

[Sundance]

No resemblance. The "Messiahic Judaism" movement which started in the 1960s is just Evangelical Protestant Christianity playing dressup. There is nothing Jewish about it, nor is there anything "Early-Christian" about it either. It's wholly Evangelical inside and out.

I would agree with this assertion in one sense, but I would disagree in another, especially regarding how it ties into early Christianity.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I know a bit about who they were and what they taught. Admittedly, I’m not too educated about them.

It's very thick read but I definitely recommend checking out Robert Eisenman's "James The Brother Of Jesus", it's essential scholarship on that aspect of early pre-Christianity.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I would agree with this assertion in one sense, but I would disagree in another, especially regarding how it ties into early Christianity.

Well the two can't be even dreamed of being equated when one takes on all of the same assumptions, doctrines and baggage as the Evangelical Protestantism it is created from and propagated by (remember the people who created it are trying to make themselves the 'special ones' to fulfill prophecies etc), and the scriptures themselves used, let alone the initiatic aspect of the pre-Christians on the Jamesian side. These people had different books, different beliefs and a direct connection to Jesus historically.

 

[Sundance]

Well the two can't be even dreamed of being equated when one takes on all of the same assumptions, doctrines and baggage as the Evangelical Protestantism it is created from and propagated by (remember the people who created it are trying to make themselves the 'special ones' to fulfill prophecies etc), and the scriptures themselves used, let alone the initiatic aspect of the pre-Christians on the Jamesian side. These people had different books, different beliefs and a direct connection to Jesus historically.

While I do think that time has had its way regarding Christianity and its later divergences from Judaism, especially normative Judaism which is based on the Pharisees’ interpretation of the Bible, to say that the movement called ‘Messianic Judaism’ is entirely distinct from early Jewish Christianity would not be accurate in my opinion, especially when you get down to the essence of what Messianic Judaism is and the centuries of history that it was created as a response to.

 

[Sundance]

@VoidoftheSun

Also, from what I’ve read, there was another group of Early Christians called ‘Nazarenes’, who were similar to the Ebionites in that they observed Jewish laws in full, but unlike them, they had later accepted the divinity of Jesus and His Virgin Birth.

 

[metis]

I believe when dealing with anything spiritual the facts tend to be amorphous so I believe it is true that spiritual things are spiritually discerned and I have the Holy Spirit as my guide. That is as good as it gets.

Agreed.

 

[CG Didymus]

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

This points to Jesus.

“Who is worthy to break the book and open the seven seals?” “The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, The Root of David”

Jesus.

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.

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?

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

A classic response.

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.

Hmmm? Jesus rose in spirit? And why would that be unique?

Actually, there are many, many, many Christian websites which deal with the centrality of the Resurrection of Jesus. You must have one eye shut.

You say the Resurrection in the Bible was merely one of spirit. Oh, how the Scriptures and Church history prove you to be a liar, madam.

The resurrection is the climax of the story. It is the whole point of the story.

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

Some of us try to ignore. Many reject it. It's hard to believe. Taking it to the extreme, a Christian is expected to believe most everything in the Bible literally. Creation, Satan, Jonah and the big fish, walking on water, and the resurrection? Much easier to reject or ignore or, for those that still want to be "Christians", be liberal Christians. Deny and reject the things that they don't like. Baha'is too... they have a way to believe in God and Jesus and deny and reject all the things they don't like.

The Gospel of salvation for all who believe.

A lot of that was Paul's. What do Baha'i believe about Paul?

As to Paul’s teachings, in the early church,

I found this from the Baha'i Universal House of Justice...

Incoming Query from an individual: Also I would like to know if there is any statement in the writings of Bahá’u’lláh, `Abdu’l-Bahá or the letters of the Guardian that state that Saint Paul “usurped the station of Peter, and that Saint Paul completely “changed the basic message of Jesus Christ.” This is the substance of a section of a book recently published by George Ronald Pub. Co…. Response of the Universal House of Justice Concerning the relationship of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Research Department has found nothing in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, `Abdu’l-Bahá or the Guardian which states that St. Paul “usurped the station of Peter” or that he “completely changed the basic message of Christ.”

Bahá'í Scholarship and the Bible

Bahá'u'lláh writes concerning the Books of Christians and the peoples of other Faiths:

"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."[9]
For Bahá'ís, Bahá'u'lláh's writings are divine revelation, and such passages as this are very affirming of the Bible. It may be surprising, therefore, to learn that there has been a lively exchange of views among Bahá'í scholars as to what Bahá'ís believe about the various books of the Bible and their authors, particularly the works of Saint Paul.

1. A current discussion

This exchange began in 1967 when a Christian theologian, Dr Kurt Hutten, accused Bahá'ís of an "inability to carry on a serious dialogue, defective knowledge of the Christian Faith, lack of theological "further education" and "helplessness faced by the message of the Cross"[10]. In a well argued response Udo Schaefer appeared to be unduly critical of Saint Paul's role in the development of Christian dogma.[11] William Hatcher favourably reviewed Schaefer's work in World Order magazine[12], and subsequently Bahá'í contributors responded with a range of opinions about Saint Paul, some critical and some strongly supportive.[13] My own conclusion drawn from this "debate" is that Bahá'ís recognise Paul as an Apostle and ought to hold him in very high esteem, but that there is no substantive evidence that his writings have the authority of the Word of God. As one of the writers stated: "Paul's writings do not constitute divine revelation for a Bahá'í."[14]

2. Preparing for a Bahá'í-Christian dialogue

In a recent series of books[15] Michael Sours offers a spirited defence of the view that the whole Bible, including the works of Saint Paul, and regardless of the historical difficulties (which Sours does not neglect), should be used by Bahá'ís as if it had the authority of the Word of God.
​

 

[CG Didymus]

Ace! Bullseye! With that

But that is not necessarily the "official" Baha'i view? So what do you think of Paul? And, what things do you agree with the Baha'i Faith... and are there things that you disagree with?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I believe that the gospel writers wrote stories that made it appear as if Jesus rose from the dead and millions of people got duped into believing that Jesus rose from the dead by reading those stories and believing what Christianity teaches unquestionably.

I also believe the belief in the bodily resurrection is the worst thing that has ever happened to Christianity because the very purpose for which Jesus lived and died was completely lost and forgotten because of the focus on the bodily resurrection. Even the cross sacrifice has played second fiddle to the bodily resurrection.

Christians who believe in the bodily resurrection are glorifying the flesh of Jesus. Such a focus on the boldly resurrection goes completely against what Jesus taught about the unimportance of the flesh. Jesus makes it very clear that the physical body is not important, only spiritual life is important.

Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

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.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

Needless to say, I believe the resurrection stories were fictional stories, just as the liberal Christians believe.
What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

I have no theories about why they were written to sound real because only God knows why that happened.

I do not believe that Jesus ever rose from the dead so there is not point trying to convince me of that.
You have a right to your beliefs and I have a right to mine, and I do not want to argue about them.