He is Risen - The Evidence

[nPeace]

Now it's my turn.

Seriously, nPeace, I can't address all you wrote, I'm sorry. I appreciate the effort though.

You... You mean you are not going to answer my question.
Okay. Forget the question. It's off topic really.
Let's talk about the facts. Do you agree I did presents the facts, and not opinion, and if not, which part is opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You... You mean you are not going to answer my question.
Okay. Forget the question. It's off topic really.
Let's talk about the facts. Do you agree I did presents the facts, and not opinion, and if not, which part is opinion?

You clearly did not present facts. The Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even without considering the prophecies the awaited messiah was not a divinity. At least that's my understanding.

No, I do not believe the messiah would be a divinity, but rather a Manifestation of God, as Jesus was.

When God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh and Jesus dwelt among us. God did not become flesh, but rather the divine perfections of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed the Word of God to humanity.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

I believe that same process was to repeat itself when the messiah came.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You... You mean you are not going to answer my question.
Okay. Forget the question. It's off topic really.
Let's talk about the facts. Do you agree I did presents the facts, and not opinion, and if not, which part is opinion?

It's a multi-perspective thing. What is one man's man's fact is another man's opinion. There is no definitive answer.

 

[nPeace]

It's a multi-perspective thing. What is one man's man's fact is another man's opinion. There is no definitive answer.

Oh. So you were, and are only stating opinions... all the way.
So why did you make me go to all that trouble to dig up facts for you?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the only place Bahaullah fits in Scripture:
“For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24:5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Bahaullah is an impersonator or imposter.‬‬

Imposter: a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, especially for fraudulent gain. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imposter+means

Baha’u’llah cannot be an imposter because Baha’u’llah never claimed to be Christ.
Why did you rip that verse out of context?

Matthew 24

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Please note that Jesus never said the HE was coming when He was asked by the disciples. All He said was to let no man deceive you. Jesus said that because Jesus knew that many men would come claiming to be Christ:
List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia

Matthew 24:5 does not apply to Baha’u’llah because Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Christ and Baha'u'llah did not come in the name of Christ. Baha’u’llah came with a NEW NAME, just as the Bible prophesied.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall 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.

The reason the Bible says that is because the same Jesus was never planning to return to Earth.

(John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30, John 18:36, John 18:37)

 

[ElishaElijah]

Imposter: a person who pretends to be someone else in order to deceive others, especially for fraudulent gain. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=imposter+means

Baha’u’llah cannot be an imposter because Baha’u’llah never claimed to be Christ.
Why did you rip that verse out of context?

Matthew 24

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Please note that Jesus never said the HE was coming when He was asked by the disciples. All He said was to let no man deceive you. Jesus said that because Jesus knew that many men would come claiming to be Christ:
List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia

Matthew 24:5 does not apply to Baha’u’llah because Baha'u'llah never claimed to be Christ and Baha'u'llah did not come in the name of Christ. Baha’u’llah came with a NEW NAME, just as the Bible prophesied.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall 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.

The reason the Bible says that is because the same Jesus was never planning to return to Earth.

(John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30, John 18:36, John 18:37)

You’re assigning and substituting him for Jesus Christ so that is either false teaching on your part, he is an imposter or impersonator.

 

[Trailblazer]

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him, ” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭15:22-28‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

There is nothing about Jesus returning to earth in those verses, which is all we were discussing. Jesus reigns in heaven, but Jesus will never reign on Earth again, since that was the job God assigned to Baha'u'llah.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

“The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one, for the things of earth pass away but heavenly things pass not away. He re-interpreted and completed the Law of Moses and fulfilled the Law of the Prophets. His word conquered the East and the West. His Kingdom is everlasting.” Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks

Now, as the return of the Christ Spirit prophesied in the Bible, Baha’u’llah is sitting on the throne of David and ruling over Earth, from heaven. Both Jesus and Baha'u'llah are in heaven at the right hand of God, and they are not in competition, because both are working for the same God. It is only Christians that believe there is a competition, not Jesus or God. They know better.

“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related. At this time, however, David crieth aloud and saith: ‘O my loving Lord! Do Thou number me with such as have stood steadfast in Thy Cause, O Thou through Whom the faces have been illumined, and the footsteps have slipped!’” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 89-90

 

[nPeace]

You’re assigning and substituting him for Jesus Christ so that is either false teaching on your part, he is an imposter or impersonator.

Yup.
He is supposed to return as Messiah / Christ, and he came as Messiah / Christ... unless this information is incorrect - It was during this time that Baháʼu'lláh declared to a small group of his companions his perceived mission and station as a Messenger of God. Baháʼu'lláh declared himself He whom God shall make manifest, a messianic figure in the religion of Bábism.

This from Has the Messiah Returned?
Baha'u'llah made two bold claims. First of all, he declared he was God's messenger for this age, having the same divine authority, the same Holy Spirit, the same divine power, as Moses, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, and the other founders of the world’s major religions.

His second claim is even more challenging. He declared he was the promised messiah foretold in all the prophecies, in all the Holy Books, of the religions of the world.

(Matthew 24:11) . . .Many false prophets will arise and mislead many;
(Matthew 24:24) . . .For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.

 

[Trailblazer]

You’re assigning and substituting him for Jesus Christ so that is either false teaching on your part, he is an imposter or impersonator.

Substituting him for Jesus Christ? No, not at all. Explain why you think that I would be doing that?

Baha’u’llah never claimed to be a ‘replacement’ for Jesus. I just came to finish the work that Jesus had started, so that the Kingdom of God could be built upon the Earth.

Clearly, Jesus said that He was going to send His Spirit in another man to finish the work He started.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Jesus was not going to come back to Earth and do anything because He said His work was finished here. His work consisted of bearing witness unto the truth about God and dying on the cross for the sins and inequities of all mankind. After He did those things His work was finished on Earth.

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.

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

(Matthew 24:11) . . .Many false prophets will arise and mislead many;
(Matthew 24:24) . . .For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.

That is certainly what has happened. List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia

But just because there have been many false prophets that does not mean there would never be a true prophet, that is illogical. That is like saying just because there are a lot of junky cars in junkyard, there can be no good cars down the street in the new car lot - illogical.

Aside from that, Jesus said we would know a true prophet by his fruits, so that means there there had to be true prophets.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Oh. So you were, and are only stating opinions... all the way.
So why did you make me go to all that trouble to dig up facts for you?

I apologize.

 

[blü 2]

Chronology
The Bible is a historical book, preeminently so among ancient writings. The histories of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and others are, in the main, fragmentary; their earlier periods are either obscure or, as presented by them, obviously mythical. Thus, the ancient document known as The Sumerian King List begins: “When kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in Eridu. (In) Eridu, A-lulim (became) king and ruled 28,800 years. Alalgar ruled 36,000 years. Two kings (thus) ruled it for 64,800 years. . . . (In) Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-Anna ruled 43,200 years; En-men-gal-Anna ruled 28,800 years; the god Dumu-zi, a shepherd, ruled 36,000 years. Three kings (thus) ruled it for 108,000 years.” = Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 265.

The Tanakh is a mix of folktale, folk history, real history, laws, poems, songs, wisdom, politics, polemic, Job would pass for a play, and so on.

And it's no more or less incredible that Dumuzi ruled for 36,000 years than that Methuselah lived for 969 years. Both seem to derive from a Mesopotamian practice of exaggeration to emphasize status, and you seem to be adopting it with your "unusually coherent and detailed history stretching through 4,000 years". As you're probably aware, no archaeology fits with the Egyptian Captivity, which appears to be entirely myth, and there are problems with the biblical claims regarding Solomon, and so on. It's never going to be a fact of history that Moses and Aaron turned the Nile into real blood and back, nor that Pharaoh's magicians then did the trick themselves, nor that anyone whose life support functions had irreversibly failed could afterwards come back to life, to start with the low-hanging fruit.

The bible is not a reliable guide to history if taken at face value. At every step its historical claims have to be compared with the external evidence. They are no more automatically correct than the claims of any other ancient document.

Yahweh isn't brought into existence till about 1500 BCE, where [he]'s one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon, with a good probability that [he] had a consort Asherah,

The Bible is uncontested, and trying to compare it to mythical documents. is in my opinion. stooping as low as one can go, and the height of desperation of critics.

Alas, you utter the yearnings of faith, not the facts as they appear. The bible is subject to the same scrutiny as any other old document, and a lot of it is incredible on the face of the record.

You haven't addressed any of the specific problems I raised ─ the impossibility of magic and the supernatural in reality, the fact that none of the accounts is by an eyewitness, independent, or within 20 years of the purported date ─ 55 years if you want details, and the fact that we have six different accounts each contradicting the other five in major ways.

Not a case of "here we go again" as you propose, but a case of faith yearning to argue with fact but having no way of actually addressing the problems that reality presents.

 

[nPeace]

I apologize.

No need buddy. I don't mind digging up loads of facts. They make for light work.

 

[nPeace]

The Tanakh is a mix of folktale, folk history, real history, laws, poems, songs, wisdom, politics, polemic, Job would pass for a play, and so on.

And it's no more or less incredible that Dumuzi ruled for 36,000 years than that Methuselah lived for 969 years. Both seem to derive from a Mesopotamian practice of exaggeration to emphasize status, and you seem to be adopting it with your "unusually coherent and detailed history stretching through 4,000 years". As you're probably aware, no archaeology fits with the Egyptian Captivity, which appears to be entirely myth, and there are problems with the biblical claims regarding Solomon, and so on. It's never going to be a fact of history that Moses and Aaron turned the Nile into real blood and back, nor that Pharaoh's magicians then did the trick themselves, nor that anyone whose life support functions had irreversibly failed could afterwards come back to life, to start with the low-hanging fruit.

The bible is not a reliable guide to history if taken at face value. At every step its historical claims have to be compared with the external evidence. They are no more automatically correct than the claims of any other ancient document.

Yahweh isn't brought into existence till about 1500 BCE, where [he]'s one of the gods of the Canaanite pantheon, with a good probability that [he] had a consort Asherah,
Alas, you utter the yearnings of faith, not the facts as they appear. The bible is subject to the same scrutiny as any other old document, and a lot of it is incredible on the face of the record.

You haven't addressed any of the specific problems I raised ─ the impossibility of magic and the supernatural in reality, the fact that none of the accounts is by an eyewitness, independent, or within 20 years of the purported date ─ 55 years if you want details, and the fact that we have six different accounts each contradicting the other five in major ways.

Not a case of "here we go again" as you propose, but a case of faith yearning to argue with fact but having no way of actually addressing the problems that reality presents.

Why do you believe your opinion and the opinions o two footed creatures sitting at a table and arguing what they believe, makes such claims a reality?
Isn't the word for that, gullibility?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you believe your opinion and the opinions o two footed creatures sitting at a table and arguing what they believe, makes such claims a reality?
Isn't the word for that, gullibility?

Oh my!! There goes another irony meter.

 

[blü 2]

Why do you believe your opinion and the opinions o two footed creatures sitting at a table and arguing what they believe, makes such claims a reality?
Isn't the word for that, gullibility?

Just show me one or two authenticated cases of the supernatural in reality and then we can move on to the details of this particular claim.

It doesn't have even one eyewitness and is found only as six mutually contradictory tales from two to six decades after the purported event.

And then, should you wish, we can move further on and discuss gullibility.

 

[nPeace]

Just show me one or two authenticated cases of the supernatural in reality and then we can move on to the details of this particular claim.

It doesn't have even one eyewitness and is found only as six mutually contradictory tales from two to six decades after the purported event.

And then, should you wish, we can move further on and discuss gullibility.

Perhaps you can demonstrate that this conversation wouldn't be another one of those "I ask the questions. You answer" one sided conversation, by answering my questions.

 

[pearl]

No, I do not believe the messiah would be a divinity, but rather a Manifestation of God, as Jesus was.

I thought more in the line of David, a mortal.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought more in the line of David, a mortal.

You believe that David will be the messiah?