For Christians ... a question I've had for a long time

[Hockeycowboy]

No, I do not think we need science to negate the Bible. I do not dismiss the Bible because I think science has a better explanation for things. I dismiss the Bible on the numerous inconsistencies in it. But that's not the point of this discussion, so let's stick to the actual topic, shall we?

Ok. But if you’d ever like to discuss some of those “inconsistencies”, one or two at a time ( I don’t appreciate any gishes), let me know. Since you claim atheism, you impressed me with your understanding of the A&E situation, and it’s bearing on, basically, why Jesus came.

The Eden event also explains why the Bible was written, describing how God’s Sovereignty was challenged.

Take care.

 

[Trailblazer]

I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

I never could understand, so I finally gave up.

 

[Trailblazer]

you impressed me with your understanding of the A&E situation, and it’s bearing on, basically, why Jesus came.

Funny thing, Jesus never said anything about the A&E situation, although Jesus did say why He came into the world.

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.'

So Jesus came into the world to bear witness unto the truth about God, not to save us from the sins of A&E.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I think it's far more reasonable that "heavens" in that passage means the skies rather than Human governments.

Well, notice the wording in 2 Peter 3. After stating that the world in Noah’s day suffered destruction, Peter says, “But the heavens and the earth that now exist....”

IOW, the heavens & earth in Peter’s day, were not the same; they did not exist back in Noah’s day. They were different....
In Genesis 11:1, we see the word “earth” used, not applying to the literal planet, but symbolically, to denote people, society. Now they were different!

To grasp the Bible’s intent accurately, it’s necessary to use all of it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Funny thing, Jesus never said anything about the A&E situation, although Jesus did say why He came into the world.

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.'

So Jesus came into the world to bear witness unto the truth about God, not to save us from the sins of A&E.

Matthew 20:28.
How is Jesus the Savior?

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course, once you start down the path of the Bible giving way to science, you may as well toss the Bible out entirely.

So you are willing to believe that which is contradicted by science? Why?

I never met any atheist who said this. Do you know that religion does not have to contradict science? The Baha’i Faith does not contradict science. We believe that science and religion are both vital to human progress, like two wings of a bird are necessary to fly.

In any case, there are plenty of Biblical literalists who disagree with you.

So what? Do you believe things just because other people believe them? Baha’is believe in independent investigation of truth. That means we are enjoined to check things out for ourselves

Your beliefs are not shared by the majority of people. And unfortunately, I'm not capable of fine tuning my arguments to respond to each and every single possible interpretation of religious faith.

Did it ever even occur to you that the majority of people are wrong? What if they are wrong and you are just going along with them?

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many or most people do not believe in the Baha’i Faith because it is the new religion at the narrow gate. Below are the primary reasons why most people do not believe in a new religion.

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. If they are irreligious they have become fatigued by the already established religions and thus just find it more annoying that a new one has popped up.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Funny thing, Jesus never said anything about the A&E situation, although Jesus did say why He came into the world.

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.'

So Jesus came into the world to bear witness unto the truth about God, not to save us from the sins of A&E.

John 1:29.

For what reason were the Israelites mandated to offer up all those sacrifices? To symbolically atone for their sins.

Those sacrificial procedures, and the sacrifices themselves, pointed forward to Jesus’ sacrifice....to “take away the sins of the world”!

 

[Trailblazer]

Matthew 20:28.
How is Jesus the Savior?

Matthew 20:28.Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

That is fully congruent with my Baha'i beliefs, almost word for word.

“That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him. For the same reason was Ḥusayn offered up as a sacrifice by Muḥammad, the Apostle of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 75-76

But Jesus never said anything about being a ransom for any original sin of A&E, that is Church dogma.

 

[Trailblazer]

John 1:29.

For what reason were the Israelites mandated to offer up all those sacrifices? To symbolically atone for their sins.

Those sacrificial procedures, and the sacrifices themselves, pointed forward to Jesus’ sacrifice....to “take away the sins of the world”!

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

I agree that Jesus came to take away the sins of the world, but that is certainly not the ONLY reason Jesus came into the world, as Christians would have us believe. That is a complete insult to Jesus to even suggest that is the only reason, or even the primary reason, that Jesus lived and died. It is atrocious.

The primary reason Jesus came was to teach us about God and how we should live our lives. By making the cross sacrifice center stage, you walk all over Jesus and His primary mission.

You can cherry pick verses until the day you die to try to prove your point, but so could I, and I can find more verses that prove my point than you can find to prove your point.

 

[nPeace]

Spirits who died are those spirits who once were alive at the time of Noah having physical bodies who then perished in the great flood.

Spirits died? When? Where did you read that, please?
The Bible does not say anything about spirits that were once alive and died. !!!? Where did you read that?

Again, what does your cited verses in 2Peter, Jude 6, Genesis 6, and Job 1 have anything to do with Noah’s day and the great flood from which 1Peter 3:18-20 was referring to?

They all speak of the same account - when angels - spirits, left their original dwelling place - heaven, and came to earth, commited the sin of taking women, having sexual relations with them, resulting in hybrid offspring - Giants, which contributed to the abundant violence on the earth.

The point of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison was referring to people who once had bodies who then died and those spirits continued on in some sort of restricted or prison state or in a damned state.

That's what you are saying. You have not quoted any scripture in the Bible that says Jesus preached to people that once had bodies.
May I remind you that you admitted that that belief makes no sense.
Think.
"people who once had bodies who then died and those spirits continued on"
Think about what you are saying.
If a spirit has a body that dies, did the spirit die?
How then would the spirit need to be resurrected ?
However you try to make it make sense, it never will make sense.
Either it died or it did not. It cannot be part dead part alive.
Are you giving serious thought to what you believe?

Did Jesus die or did he not die?
The Bible says he died. He died as a human - in the flesh... is what the Bible says.
He was raised up - resurrected as a spirit, on the third day... after which he went and preached to the spirits - angels - wicked ones.

Jesus was not preaching while dead. How could he? He was dead.
Was it just his body that died? Then his body died, and not him... but that's not what the Bible says. That's what you say.
A snake sheds its skin, but the snake has not died.
Jesus is no snake, shedding a body. If that's the way it works, then he never died... but he did, according to the Bible.
You are saying otherwise. Are you? Again... did Jesus die?
Then would you admit, what you believe makes no sense as you rightly said. You can't make it.

Of course, we have the freedom to believe what we want, but believing what we want to, regardless of what the Bible says, has consequences - not good ones at all.
Jesus said... "It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines." (Matthew 15:9) .

HOW could Jesus have taught these spirts as described in 1Peter if he wasn’t made alive u til third day?

Preach. The Bible says he preached.
As a spirit himself, can Jesus not preach to spirits? Certainly he can.

Yes. The Bible says he was raised up - made alive, as a spirit.
As one spirit to another, Jesus preached to them - probably a reminder of their imminent destruction.

Jesus doing that teaching happened between his death and resurrection. His resurrection didn’t happen until the third day. That does not fit at all with your interpretation of what being made alive according to the spirit means.

That's what you believe, and we have already established that makes no sense. Neither is it scriptural.
Again, Jesus was not teaching, and he could do nothing until he was alive again.
A dead person is not alive. Resurrection means to make alive. Jesus was dead.
Can we stick to the scriptures. The beliefs you present here don't lead to salvation for anyone.

At least we can see where conflicts arrive. Not from the Bible, but from beliefs persons hold on to.
Who taught you this, may I ask?

To be resurrected is only meant to be a spiritual one does not fit BECAUSE according to your definition Jesus couldn’t do anything until the third day since it wasn’t until the third day when he was resurrected. He couldn’t teach any spirts in prison BECAUSE according to you Jesus wasn’t made alive according to the spirit. That contradicts 1Peter 3:18-20.

You keep mentioning one scripture. Which does not say what you believe, but you show no scripture to support the things you are saying.
According to the Bible, Jesus was raised on the third day, as a spirit,

Can you read that? What is it saying?
Oh, it's read from right to left - opposite to English.

(Matthew 16:21) . . .Jesus began explaining to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and on the third day be raised up.

(Matthew 17:22, 23) 22 It was while they were gathered together in Galilee that Jesus said to them: “The Son of man is going to be betrayed into men’s hands, 23 and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised up.” And they were very much grieved.

Also, HOW does resurrection mean it’s just a spiritual one when according to your definition of resurrection means being restored to life? When physical death occurs the body loses function. So in order to be resurrected the function of the physical body has to be restored.

Do you understand the difference between spiritual and spirit?
What do you think Satan is? What is an angel?
(Hebrews 1:7) . . .“He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.”
(Hebrews 1:13, 14) 13 But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?

I never said what you are thinking. Evidently you are the person who is thinking of spiritual.
I think you may be getting confused with the concept taught to you that man has a living spirit that lives on.
I can see how that teaching has made things confusing to many.

Also, HOW could the resurrection be only defined as a spiritual resurrection when according to you the spirit never came to life to begin with until after being dead physically? There is no restoration involved.

What is a spiritual resurrection?
I am guessing you have in your mind, not a literal resurrection.
Search as you might, nowhere would you find me saying anything about a spiritual resurrection... in that sense.
Being raised as a spirit is literally a person whom have died physically being raised to life as a spirit being.
See 1 Corinthians 15, and again...

It's as simple as that. It's nothing like the confusing idea that a person has a spirit that never dies, and so that person is resurrected spiritually - that is, godly. If that make it any sense..

That idea is not scriptural, but sadly, it is taught in many churches.
I really hope you see who are imposters (2 Corinthians 11:12-15) ... please. You seem like a nice person.

 

[nPeace]

Just because you you never heard of the point that the angels God condemned never were given the opprotunity to be born begin with does not mean that didn’t happen.

Not scriptural.
What do you mean by, "to be born"?
Angel were created eons ago, They don't need to be reborn.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer was such a fallen angel. There is nothing shown that Lucifer was ever born physically.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
(Revelation 12:4, 7-10 KJV)

Describing the great dragon or Satan or the Devil had his angels and those verses shows that a third of all the angels in Heaven followed Satan or the dragon. Then there was a war between Satan and his angels against Michael and his angels. Satan and his angels did not prevail and were cast out into the Earth.

There was nothing showing that either Satan or his angels ever were born and so there is no connection between the angels you cited who were punished by God and the spirits in prison with whom Christ preached to in 1Peter.

I believe we existed as spirts before we were born into this world of mortality.

Ah. I see. You believe these things... Not scriptural.
The thing about believing things, and using the Bible, is that if those things are not scripturally true, they don't benefit the believer.
So let me ask... again. You never did answer... Who tempted Eve in the garden? Where did they come from?
Who were the sons of God that were alive when God started creating the earth?

4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jeremiah 1:4-5 KJV)

That shows an example of there was a state of existence for us prior to being born physically.

No it doesn't. You believe these things, remember.
What you believe about the scripture we looked at earlier does not make sense, remember?

God knew Jeremiah and had expectations of him prior to him being born physically, which also shows it’s possible for the rest of us who were born also existed as spirits prior to being born.

So you are saying God cannot know you in the womb?
That belief does not follow logically either.
(Genesis 25:21-23) 21. . .Jehovah responded to his plea, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 And the sons within her began to struggle with each other, so that she said: “If this is the way it is, why should I go on living?” So she inquired of Jehovah. 23 And Jehovah said to her: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples will be separated from within you; and the one nation will be stronger than the other nation, and the older will serve the younger.”

Notice that God also knew the outcome when they would be grown adults.
So because God can see more than we can, does that not humble us, and should we then not stop using our ideas to try to fit into the Bible?
Is it not better to understand the Bible?

So you don't believe we are all from Adam then?
This idea that we are spirit walking around with a body, and shedding that body to move on to another life... do you know where it came from?
So many are still in Babylon. Revelation 18:4
For some reason, my heart goes out to you.

That also means that Satan and his angels also had existed spiritually. However, there was no showing that either Satan or his angels ever were born obtained any physical bodies when they were cast into the Earth.

Matthew 25:53 does not show that the angels Jesus could request from his father would also be angels with whom God punished and who were born. After all, a third of all angels would follow Satan and were cast out into the Earth with Satan.

It is obvious the angels Jesu referred to were faithful.

(Matthew 4:11) . . .Then the Devil left him, and look! angels came and began to minister to him.
(Mark 1:13) . . .So he continued in the wilderness for 40 days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild beasts, but the angels were ministering to him.

(Luke 22:43) . . .Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him.

What does how long one studies the Bible that have to do with the validity of what I presented. It’s either valid or invalid regardless of how long I have studied.

True.

Also, what does John 8:23 have anything to do with Jesus visiting and preaching to those spirits in prison? After all, Jesus was from a realms above this Earth, but that didn’t stop him from living on this Earth in mortality where he preached and sacrificed himself.

Of course the realms above was with his father in heaven, as a mighty spirit creature.
(John 16:28) I came as the Father’s representative and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”
(John 13:3) So Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands and that he came from God and was going to God,
(Hebrews 9:24) For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf.

What that shows is that Jesus was in heaven with his father, before coming to earth.
My question to you was, what is Satan, and where was Satan from?
Where did Jesus come from, was answered by the scripture at John 8.
That same scripture shows that the Devil also existed then (verse 44).

 

[Deeje]

So your proof that the “sons of God” specifically refer to angels is what?

The Bible. As I have already explained, the term "sons of God" always refers to those who are a direct creation of God.....others are referred to as "sons of Adam". The term "son of man" means one born of a human mother. Jesus came as "a son of man" (born of Mary) to offer his life for ours....but he is also a "son of God" so that he was born in human form without the stain of Adamic sin......he came to die so as to release Adam's children from the debt left to them by his one act of disobedience. (Romans 5:12; 18-19)

Do you have no understanding of the "ransom"? (Matthew 20:28) I guess not when LDS teaches that Adam is some kind of hero who took the plunge into death so that he could have sex with his wife and produce children. (as if sex was the original sin) When I was exploring the LDS faith, there was just so much that was absolute nonsense that I could not bring myself to believe it blindly. Nothing agreed with the Bible.

How does you simply saying “Therefore the "sons of God" who noticed the beautiful daughters of human women (Genesis ch 6) were materialized rebel angels. These had children born to them who were the cause of much violence and licentiousness in the days prior to the flood. Their presence on earth was the catalyst for what God did to get rid of them” PROVE that was the case?

If they were mere humans then why did God choose to flood the whole world in order to deal with them?
Men had been marrying and women been given in marriage since the beginning.....this was a situation that was out of the ordinary....those who were taking the women in marriage (all whom they chose) were actually taking the women who belonged to other men.....forcing them to have sex and producing hybrid children.....violent monsters (the Nephilim) who were terrorizing the world with their wicked ways.

Mention of the Nephilim in connection with abnormally large men who existed after the flood was a reference to the flood legends which were embellished over time. Greek mythology reflects the existence of licentious 'gods' and the 'demi-gods' who actually existed prior to the flood. This is what I believe Genesis is saying.

There is no distinction given other than the sons of God being anything other than just that. The sons of God, which that definition would fit any male human who was ever born on Earth. That also makes everything else you posted about regarding the “sons of God” come into question. Where are you getting that info from?

Where are ordinary humans ever called "sons of God"? The only humans who fit that description are those who are "born again" by the operation of God's spirit, they are given a new birth...in a new body specially made for them by God so that they can dwell in heaven with Jesus. They will rule with him in his kingdom.

How does you simply defining what Satan’s angels are have anything to with what I asked which was;

Where is the connection between the angels as described in Luke 8;30,31 or 2Peter 2, or Revelation 20 with the same spirits Jesus preached to in their prison state between Jesus’s death and resurrection as opposed to being Satan’s angels who were not shown to ever having been born in the first place as shown in Revelation 12? How does you saying that what was described in Revelation 12 was just symbolic mean that what was described in Revelation 12 was only symbolic?

After all the scripture that has been given to you, you still ask for proof? You already have it.
What do you think demons are? Where do you think they come from? Why did the name of Jesus Christ cause the demons to abandon their hosts in Bible times? Why did they beg Jesus not to order them to go into the abyss? (Luke 8:31; Revelation 20:1-3)

What scripture states that Adam was not a soul or spirit until he breathed?

Genesis 2:7...KJV
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Adam only "became" a soul when God started him breathing. Before the breath of life, Adam was a dead soul. Souls are mortal...they die. (Ezekiel 18:4)

How does you saying there is no spirit before or after death proof that it was taught in the Gospel that there is no soul or spirit before or after death? Once again you failed to address the point that Peter said that between his death and resurrection he actually did do something. He taught other spirits who like he at the time were not resurrected either physically or spiritually.

These were the spirits who left their proper dwelling place in heaven to taste the pleasures of the flesh on earth. (Jude 6) These are the ones who were forced back to the spirit realm by the flood.....their monstrous children perished. The scripture does not state that he preached to these spirits between his death and resurrection because Jesus himself said that he would be 'in the heart of the earth for three days and nights as Jonah was in the belly of the fish'. IOW, Jesus would remain in his tomb until the third day when his God would restore his life as a spirit being. Heaven is where he came from and that is where he would return. It was after his resurrection that he delivered his judgment to those wicked spirits in prison.

 

[Deeje]

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
(Jeremiah 1:5 KJV)

This was a personal statement made to Jeremiah, not to everyone in general. Very few individuals have had their destiny pre-ordained, but Jeremiah was one of them....so was Moses and John the Baptist, but not the population in general. Before our parents conceived us, we did not exist. There is no scripture that says otherwise.
There is no scripture that says we have a spirit that is a separate entity living inside our body that survives death, let alone one that existed before we were born and who wanted to become a human. This notion appears nowhere in the Bible.

How could God have known or sanctified Jeremiah before he was born if it’s Gospel that Jeremiah didn’t exist before he was born?

Jeremiah was a prophet...his assignment was pre-ordained....that does not mean that all of us are predestined to do or to be whatever we turn out to be....seriously, you think God is responsible for the rapists and the murderers because he predestined them to for that behavior?

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
(Luke 23:43 KJV)

Jesus said “To day”. Not on third day. That mean that BOTH Jesus and the thief on the cross Jesus was talking to had to exist between physical death and when Jesus was resurrected.

Another misinterpreted text....do you never think outside the box? Read what it says in context and ask what statement Jesus was responding to....?

The thief said...."remember me when you get into your Kingdom"

He told the thief that he would be with him in "paradise".....NOT heaven. Where was the first paradise? For humans it was Eden. Now ask yourself, according to scripture, could the thief be with Jesus in heaven that day?
Jesus was dead in his tomb for three days before God raised him up. Did he go to heaven that day? Not according to the Bible...after his resurrection, he stayed to encourage his apostles for 40 days before he returned to his Father. (Acts 1:3) During that entire period, there is no mention of him residing with his apostles though he had been their constant companion for the previous three and a half years. It says only that he "appeared" to them.

When Mary Magdalene met him at the tomb....."Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

If you knew more than your own narrow viewpoint, you would know the answers to all your questions without having to ask anyone.

What does the apostles not recognizing how Jesus was a changed person when he was resurrected prove that the resurrection was not physical? It was still Jesus and they gandered Jesus’s resurrected physical body.

Also where is the proof that a God with a physical body cannot disappear in front of others with that physical body?

Something to do with physics I imagine. Physical bodies cannot go through walls or disappear. Matter will not allow it. Molecules do not move out of the way for other molecules.

How does the point that Jesus’s crucified wound marks remained when resurrected prove he was not really resurrected physically? That doesn’t make any sense. Just because you don’t get why Jesus’s resurrected body still had the wounds marks does not mean it’s proof that it was never taught that Jesus a resurrected physical body that still had wound marks.

Jesus did not take back his sacrificed body...it was offered on behalf of all mankind who put faith in his redemption. Jesus was a healer...no one who came to listen to his public addresses were in pain or discomfort because he healed them first. Tell me why God would not heal his own son of those painful afflictions? He died in the flesh but was resurrected as a spirit....as Peter said. (1 Peter 3:18) No wounds were visible except on the occasion where he needed to convince a doubter.

 

[Deeje]

You pointed it out before that when the resurrected Jesus first appeared to those witnesses they did not recognize him at first. Apparently resurrection in a perfected state can change the look of a person. The wound marks are a way so that others can recognize just who this glorified person is.

Nonsense. In all the resurrections performed in the scriptures, all were raised as they were when they died....not glorified in any way, but fully recognizable as the person they were before. Just healed of whatever had caused their death.

Where do you get that Jesus having his physical body back in his resurrection cancelled the very reason it was given?

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(John 3:16 KJV)

Another scripture that nobody really reads.....what is the opposite of everlasting life in this verse? What does it mean to "perish"? What does it mean to "believe"? (James 2:19)

There is no distinction that defined everlasting life as being only spiritual, especially when in Luke 24 Jesus appeared to his apostles in a physical body.

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
(1Corinthians 15:44 KJV)

There is nothing in that verse that a raised body with just spiritually exclusive. Again Pointing out Jesus appearing to his apostles in a physical body. Jesus had both his spiritual body and his physical one at the same time.

According to scripture Jesus (as a spirit) had the ability, like other spirit beings before him, to materialize "flesh and bone", but he never said "flesh and blood" did he? He poured out his blood for the forgiveness of our sins.
You don't take back what you sacrificed because that would nullify it.

Also, it’s the mortal natural body that Paul was referring to that was sown. That mortal natural body being corrupt and faulty. To be raised spiritually meant to be not of this world, which is mortal and messed up and is only into the physical.

You do understand that Paul was one of the "chosen ones" along with many of those who came to Christ in those days. He spoke of those with "the heavenly calling" (Hebrews 3:1)...the ones mentioned in Revelation as having part in the "first resurrection". (Revelation 20:6)

Jesus told them... “Your heart must not be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in Me. 2 In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if not, I would have told you. I am going away to prepare a place for you. 3 If I go away and prepare a place for you, I will come back and receive you to Myself, so that where I am you may be also." (John 14:1-3 HCSB)

Not all of Christ's disciples are chosen ones. Because, just like in ancient Israel there were some who were from tribes who could be priests and some from tribes that could be Kings....Jesus was both and so are those called to rule with him in heaven. They are a finite number who will be raised to heavenly life by God, being given spiritual bodies like Jesus so that they can dwell where he is. But not all Christians will go to heaven. God put humans on earth...not as a training ground, but as a permanent home for them. The Kingdom will rule mankind from heaven and bring us back to God's first purpose...everlasting life in paradise on earth.

Revelation 21:2-4 is a glimpse of what the future holds for those deemed worthy to receive everlasting life on earth....The "holy city" is the Kingdom of God coming to bring God's rulership to the earth...to humankind.

" I also saw the Holy City, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband.

3 Then I heard a loud voice from the throne:

Look! God’s dwelling is with humanity,
and He will live with them.
They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them
and be their God.
4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes.
Death will no longer exist;
grief, crying, and pain will exist no longer,
because the previous things have passed away." (HCSB)

There will be no more death or tears or pain because God will have rid the earth of all who cause pain and suffering to others. What on earth makes people think that God was ever going to take us all to heaven? If he had wanted us in heaven, he would have put us there in the beginning.

Jesus was Jewish and the Jews did not believe in life either before death or after it. "Souls" live whilst ever they breathe. There is no such thing as a disembodied soul.....

 

[Trailblazer]

And the basis for you believing they are myths is what? Is there proof that a God who wants us to rely on faith in him instead of relying on established evidence was never physically resurrected or are you just going off of your belief?

There is no proof that Jesus was not physically resurrected but there also is no proof that He was, so why should I believe He was? It is because of my Baha’i beliefs that I know that Jesus was not physically resurrected:

23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST

How does Paul say nothing about Adam and what happened in the Garden of Eden prove that is the case when there is;

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1Corinthians 15:22 KJV)

You going on about there being two natures in Adam does not preclude that the development of those natures occurred while in the Garden of Eden. While I don’t believe in original sin I do believe that what happened in the Garden of Eden with Adam did result in all of us physically dying and you going on about how that verse goes over two natures does not prove it has taught that humanity was not subject to physical death due to Adam.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Why do you think that Paul was referring to Adam dying in the Garden of Eden? Again, my beliefs regarding the meaning of that verse are explained on this link:

29: EXPLANATION OF VERSE TWENTY-TWO, CHAPTER FIFTEEN, OF THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS

Why do you believe that what happened in the Garden of Eden with Adam resulted in all of us physically dying?

Every human born is subject to death and has been long before Adam and Eve, since some form of humans have existed on earth for 200,000 years. People are born and then they die, because God made our bodies that way, as mortal.

Read these verses. It was only AFTER God delineated all the punishments for eating the fruit from the tree that God said that Adam would return to dust!

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The very last verse in the series is this one:

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

How could anyone with any logical abilities believe that returning to dust was part of the punishment?!

All God was saying is that AFTER Adam and Eve endure all the punishments delineated in the preceding verses they will return to dust (die). Of course Adam and Eve will die at the end of their life. Everyone dies at the end of their life.

Why do you not believe there will be a 1,000 year reign? Where does it say that Jesus was finished with ALL of his work and therefore would be no more task to perform?

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

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.

The hundred-dollar question is what makes Christians believe that Jesus is coming back to this world to do more work, as that is NOT supported by the Bible. Not only did Jesus say He is NOT coming back in the following verses, but there are NO verses that say that Jesus IS coming back

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

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.

The 1,000 year reign belief is not based on nothing that was taught especially when there details about it in Revelation. Why do you believe that the Book of Revelation is baseless?

I do not believe Revelation is baseless but I also do not believe it is about Jesus returning. I believe it is about the coming of the Bab and Baha’u’llah, a messianic duo who inaugurated a new religious dispensation:

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

Why do you believe in your “Heaven and Hell” definition that the resurrection was only from one works of the physics to the spiritual when in Luke 24 Jesus had his disciples handle his resurrected physical body? Why do you believe the “Heaven and Hell” definition over what is given in the Gospel of Luke?

26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job 19:26 KJV

I do not see anything in Luke that addresses heaven and hell. I believe in the Baha’i definition because I am a Baha’i.

I’m not understanding any of what you are BECAUSE you have not explained or provided anything that shows what you believe carries any more validity than what I believe. You just claim you believe what you believe and that’s all there is to it.

What I believe is based upon the Revelation of Baha’u’llah. What you believe is based upon the Bible. Why would what you believe carry any more validity than what I believe?

It all boils down to whether Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be. If He was then certain things follow and it is a complete game changer for humanity even if they don’t believe it.

Well, at least when it comes to why I believe what I believe also stems through with studying what I studied but I in addition try to apply what is taught in my life to see if it’s good and even seeking assuredness if what I have been learning and applying is true by asking God in prayer if it’s true.

All of the above also applies to me. I did not just believe what I do without investigating it thoroughly.

So then if there is a third party out there who wonders if what I claim to believe in is right there is one way for that third party to find out. That would be to try and do what I claimed and see first hand if the same assurance is given.

I do not think that would ever work in reality because humans are all so different and their life situations are also very different, so what worked for you will not necessarily work for someone else. The best way to know if a religion is true is to look at all the supporting evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Ok. But if you’d ever like to discuss some of those “inconsistencies”, one or two at a time ( I don’t appreciate any gishes), let me know.

I would never resort to a Gish Gallop. I prefer to examine issues by actually discussing them, not by overloading others with more than they could respond to and then claiming victory.

Since you claim atheism, you impressed me with your understanding of the A&E situation, and it’s bearing on, basically, why Jesus came.

Thanks. I think you'll find that most atheists have an above average understanding of the Bible. Many atheists became atheists due to actually reading it and not just blindly accepting it.

The Eden event also explains why the Bible was written, describing how God’s Sovereignty was challenged.

Of course, if that never happened, then we must find another explanation.

Take care.

You too.

 

[nPeace]

What does your general definition of “sons of God” have to do with your claim that the angels God punished were individuals who were born and were around at the time if the great flood and who also also Jesus preached to between his death and resurrection?

Pardon me?
If by individuals you mean humans, I didn't claim that.
The angels were not individuals in the sense of human, but they are spirit beings.
I am having some difficulty understanding why you are asking me to repeat what I said though.
Did you not understand?

Where is the connection between the angels as described in Luke 8;30,31 or 2Peter 2, or Revelation 20 with the same spirits Jesus preached to in their prison state between Jesus’s death and resurrection as opposed to being Satan’s angels who were not shown to ever having been born in the first place as shown in Revelation 12?

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question regarding Satan, and where he came from.

How do you get that to be made alive according to the spirit meant that the spirit and the body were never together when according you like the “unto dust one returns to God so does the spirit”? To be made alive according to the spirit according to you means one never existed as a spirit until death, so there would be no returning of the spirit.

Pardon me?
There is not translation that reads "according to the spirit". 1 Peter 3:18 Parallel: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Also, I never said that "the spirit and the body were never together".
All breathing creatures have spirit. Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20
They are formed from the dust, and given spirit, so as to sustain breathing. Genesis 2:7 ; Job 33:4 ;

Hence, at death, this happens...
Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
(Job 34:14, 15) 14 If he fixes his attention on them, If he gathers their spirit and breath to himself, 15 All humans would perish together, And mankind would return to the dust.

I did not say one returns to God. According to the Bible, the spirit returns to God.
The dust goes back to the earth.

HOW does Ecclesiastes 12 show that there could not be any spirts that would exist in a prison state, especially since Peter did say that there were spirts that were in a prison state according to 1Peter 3:18-20? If the spirit does not roam anywhere would indicate that such a spirit has restrictions kind of like a prisoner can’t just roam anywhere.

I did not say no spirits exist in a prison state.
The Bible says hey are spirits in prison - spirits are spirit creatures - angels.
Spirit in man is not a spirit creature, or being. The Bible says this...
(Isaiah 42:5) . . .he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
(Job 27:3) All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;
(Genesis 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 6:17; 7:22

Thete is nothing to indicate in Job 27 that in order for Job to have the spirit of God in his nostrils Job could not also have his spirit in his physical body as well. There is nothing saying that Job’ was not big enough for the both of them spirits.

Both of what?
The spirit that God put in man, and the spirit that man made up from an unscriptural idea?
The Bible says there is no room for that spirit based on a false doctrine.

30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth. (Psalms 104:30 KJV). Where is it shown that “ they are created” cannot mean both spirit and body?

Read the verse before.

Isaiah 42 showing about God giving breath and spirit to those who walk in it would mean that God united spirit and body together when they walk the Earth. That means when death comes the spirit continues on separated from the body they were once tied to by God. The scriptures you cited do show that the spirit and the body are tied together during our life in mortality.

When they walk the earth? They. Do you mean the spirit and the body, or men?
Men walk the earth. Not the spirit and the body.
Your ideas are not scripture.

Also,
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5 KJV)
How can go about to be born of the spirit in this life if one does not become alive in the spirit until after being dead physically?

26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: (Job 19:26 KJV)

HOW do you figure that means only that Job had confidence that after he closed his eyes, he would be like a old dried up stump of a tree in the ground, nesting until he gets a scent of water to be reviewed, and grow into a new tree?

That verse talks about Job rotting away. His physical body being destroyed, and then he states that in the flesh he shall see God. Not in the spirit only or in a new spiritual body but in the flesh. The words “new” and “spirit” were not used, but the words “...in the flesh...” we’re used.

How do you figure that resurrection is not with the physical body when Jesus brought his apostles to him to handle him showing he had a body of flesh and bone and even ate food with his apostles as shown in Luke 24?

I'm tired.. literally.
I guess my patience just died.
Maybe it will be resurrected, but it isn't living on right now.
Take care.

 

[rational experiences]

I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

Jesus is a man named summation that quoted a thesis Phi.

From Isis to th IS IS Ie Sus.

Named an appraised Phi letter to number that quotes the son of god O earth body mass a body of fell. Caused by man father adult scientist human.

Reason day went dark.

Jesus taken off cross.

Son of god.

Theism.

Man human designer. Machines temple pyramid.
O God earth natural.
Mountain top disintegration was pyramid theme water pressure and UFO.

What part of the thesis did he own,?

None of it.

Design equals a destroyer outcome forced upon natural matter to change for a human reason.

Reason you said I design. Created is created.

Law vacuum God natural by space law. Earth formed own form. Natural.

As you are not a God you did not take your earth mass body into a conversion as God by will a God.

Instead brain irradiated conversion effect changed mutated your human body. Mind never been the same spiritual man since. AI effect.

Between natural and aware seeking information when our bio conscious chemistry never existed your mind is warped as a saying to describe what is difficult to relate.

God created as God. O mass creating in space formed it's owned presence. Our God is stone.

Man created as designer forced Ai state. Why trying to understand UFO he is wrong.

As it is not natural. It was taken beyond natural created laws into unnatural destruction.

You knew what you formed was by your own manipulation. Which is not God in science AI. But you surely try to convince us that God created the Ai effect when human science did.

Dust nuclear for instance. You chose to destroy its nature. You learnt in that destructive change which in reality should not be occurring. As vacuum stopped God destruction owning dust.

A law in space.

Your claim today I will understand destruction.

Father said brother satanist man young man theist owner of the design science.

O ovary in female mother life not his.

Man human string theories from man body but future is baby history.

Babies who died in spirit a few have come back to visit parent as adult. Medium Doris stokes had the experience. So has my girl friend.

Theist due to science sacrificed our life was spiritually a man young person by and who theoried not to grow old or to be a baby.

Old human is seen as young adult visiting and baby seen as grown adult in human spirit image. Records. Phenomena owned caused by man scientist. Proof he caused it. By records and recording conditions.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, notice the wording in 2 Peter 3. After stating that the world in Noah’s day suffered destruction, Peter says, “But the heavens and the earth that now exist....”

IOW, the heavens & earth in Peter’s day, were not the same; they did not exist back in Noah’s day. They were different....
In Genesis 11:1, we see the word “earth” used, not applying to the literal planet, but symbolically, to denote people, society. Now they were different!

To grasp the Bible’s intent accurately, it’s necessary to use all of it.

If you are going to use ALL of it, then I'm sure you have taken into account Psalms 78:69 which clearly states that the earth is established forever.

 

[Tiberius]

So you are willing to believe that which is contradicted by science? Why?

I never met any atheist who said this. Do you know that religion does not have to contradict science? The Baha’i Faith does not contradict science. We believe that science and religion are both vital to human progress, like two wings of a bird are necessary to fly.

Where in the world did I say I would believe something that was contradicted by science?

So what? Do you believe things just because other people believe them? Baha’is believe in independent investigation of truth. That means we are enjoined to check things out for ourselves

No, I believe that which has evidence which can be peer reviewed and tested by others.

Did it ever even occur to you that the majority of people are wrong? What if they are wrong and you are just going along with them?

How many people believe something has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Many or most people do not believe in the Baha’i Faith because it is the new religion at the narrow gate. Below are the primary reasons why most people do not believe in a new religion.

The religion at the narrow gate is the religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. But it is not that easy for most people to find this gate because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. If they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. If they are irreligious they have become fatigued by the already established religions and thus just find it more annoying that a new one has popped up.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

Yes, I know that the majority of people could be wrong. In fact, I actually believe that the majority of people are wrong - namely, those who say there is a deity of some kind. I believe they are wrong because their claims are mutually exclusive, there is no verifiable evidence for said deities, etc.

And I hope you aren't saying that since the majority of people say you are wrong that siding with them and saying you are wrong means I am committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy.